The Athenian Βαζηιεύο to 323

The Athenian Βαζηιεύο to 323 BCE

—Myth and Reality

Kevin James O‘Toole B.Ec., Dip.Ed., B.Sc., LL.B.

Presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

at the

University of Western Australia

School of Humanities

Discipline Group of Classics and Ancient History

2012

The Athenian Βαζηιεύο to 323 BCE

—Myth and Reality

Kevin James O‘Toole

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the always generous, good-humoured and pertinent advice to me throughout the present project of Professor John Melville-Jones.

I also gratefully acknowledge the advice and encouragement of Dr Lara O‘Sullivan.

I take the opportunity also to express my appreciation of the Reid Library at the University of Western Australia in particular for giving me efficient access to the world‘s libraries through its inter-library service.

K. J. O‘Toole

For Helen

and

for our children

Nicholas, Dominic and Stephanie

ABSTRACT

The recent more critical analysis of the ancient sources that has led to broad acceptance by modern scholars that there was no ancestral monarchy in geometric Athens of a type comparable to monarchies to the contemporaneous east and south-east of the Aegean, needs also to be applied to the traditional account of the office of the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο. The absence of ancestral monarchy itself calls for a review of the traditional account of the origins of the office of the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο, based as it is on a genesis from such a monarchy. The notion that the βαζηιεύο was ―the successor of the Bronze Age kings‖ is not sustained by a review of such Bronze Age evidence that there is. Similarly the notion that the βαζηιεύο was a ―pre-eminent religious authority‖ in Demosthenic Athens, or even the individual in Athens ―who had the highest responsibility in religious affairs‖, is not sustainable on a close and critical review of the ancient sources. Moreover, such a review of the ancient sources, including the Athenaion Politeia, leads to the conclusion that we do not have an adequate grasp of when the office was instituted, what the constitutional status of the annual βαζηιεύο was, or what the office actually did. This review, combined with the results of other modern investigations, suggests that it is possible that the office was not instituted before the end of the 6th century BCE. Furthermore, a review of the modern scholarship, where it relies on the traditional account of the office, reveals that the office has been, and continues to be, widely and inappropriately used as an argument of last resort, for instance: ‗as the βαζηιεύο was in charge of all torch races the event was ancient and sacral in nature‘. In such cases the office of βαζηιεύο becomes a trope in the form of a device used presumptively and uncritically to date and to characterize where no other means are to hand, and when prudence calls for restraint. There is a need to curb hyperbole and fantasy in references to the office, lest sight of reality is lost by means of repetition of myth.

December 2011

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 5

CHAPTER ONE—The Notion of an Athenian yZn (wanax) 25

CHAPTER TWO—Athens‘ Ancestral Βαζηιεύο 61

CHAPTER THREE—὇η Πάηξηνη and the Athenian Βαζηιεύο 99

CHAPTER FOUR— From Kreōn to Onēsippos – Part One: The Nine Archons 135

CHAPTER FIVE—From Kreōn to Onēsippos – Part Two: The Socio-Economic Context 171

CHAPTER SIX—The Demosthenic Βαζηιεύο 217

CHAPTER SEVEN—Conspectus 269

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED 277

INDEXES:

Greek Words and Phrases 323

Epigraphy 327

Ancient Authors 329

General 337

INTRODUCTION

CONTENTS

A The Aim of the Present Work 6 B Previous Studies 6 (a) Hauvette-Besnault and Carlier 6 (b) The Mechanism for the Origin of the Office of the Βαζηιεύο 7 (c) Comparison with the Roman Office of Rex Sacrorum 9 (d) Comparing the Overthrow of Monarchy in Rome and Athens 10 (e) The Bαζηιεύο and the Rex – An Historiographical Feedback Loop 11 (f) The Perception of the Office as in Origin a ‗Religious‘ Office 12 C The Literary Sources 13 (a) Homer and Hesiod 14 (b) The Athenaion Politeia 15 (c) The Forensic Speeches 17 (d) Herodotus and Thucydides 18 D Archaeology and Anthropology 18 E Words and Definition 19 F Historiographical Reasoning 20 (a) Abductive Argument 20 (b) The Argument from Silence 22 G Plan of the Work 22 Form of Names: Throughout this work names are, in general, rendered in original or transliterated Greek, save for names of ancient authors and their works, which are rendered in their most common, usually Romanized, form.

Linear B Font: The Linear B font used in this work is by courtesy, gratefully acknowledged, of Curtis Clark, California State Polytechnic University. The characters are of course stylized and cannot indicate the form variations in the original sources. 6

INTRODUCTION

A The Aim of the Present Work

It is the aim of the present work to review what is known of the office of Athenian βαζηιεύο by reference to its historical, religious and constitutional contexts, and to appraise critically the portrayal of the office and its incumbents in ancient and modern scholarship.1

B Previous Studies

(a) Hauvette-Besnault and Carlier

The first substantial modern study of the Athenian βαζηιεύο was the 1884 doctoral thesis of Amédée Hauvette-Besnault De Archonte Rege.2 That was followed a century later by Pierre Carlier‘s La Royauté Athénienne, a chapter in his monumental La Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre.3

Pierre Carlier described the genesis of the βαζηιεύο within the broader context of the collapse of an ancient Athenian monarchy:

―Le sens général de l‘évolution politique athénienne du haut archaïsme est tout à fait clair. On retrouve à Athènes les mêmes phénomènes que dans la plupart des cités grecques. 1) La royauté a été divisée en plusieurs magistratures. 2) La durée des fonctions politiques a été considérablement réduite: on est passé d'une royauté viagère à des magistratures annuelles. 3) L'accès au pouvoir a été élargi: on est passé d‘une monarchie héréditaire à des magistratures accessibles à tous les Eupatrides.‖ 4

1 In respect of the ancient literature in regard to Athens it is not always clear if ‗βαζηιεύο‘ is referring to a monarch or to the annual official (or, in at least one instance, perhaps both). The absence of the definite article can be an indicator that ‗βαζηιεύο‘ is referring to a monarch, but that is not always the case. The problem arises in a variety of contexts: see for instance p. 85 note 374 regarding a use by Plato; p. 164 note 727 a reference by Eratosthenes; pp. 152-156 re. Drakōn‘s Law; and pp. 258-259 in regard to Agora XVI 72. 2 Hauvette-Besnault (1884). 3 Carlier (1984). 4 Carlier (1984) 371. cf. Lenz (1993) 265, referring to officials called βαζηιεύο in Athens and elsewhere in Greece: ―How can one explain the various officials called βασιλεύρ except as vestigial survivals?‖ 7

In 1993 Pedro Barceló, in the course of applying some 200 words to the Athenian βαζηιεύο, echoed what had become a common characterization of the βαζηιεύο as a sort of high priest of Athens:

―Wenn wir Aristoteles folgen, so entwickelte sich aus der einstigen Machtfülle des Königs das Archontat (drei Beamte sowie sechs Thesmotheten für die Rechtsprechung) als Exekutivbehörde, daneben fungierten der Polemarchos als Truppenbefehlshaber und der als βασιλεύρ gekennzeichnete Archon als Oberpriester der Polis.‖5

Yet in 1983 Robert Drews had argued cogently that ancestral monarchy had not existed in Geometric Greece,6 and in 1993 Kurt Raaflaub argued:

―. . . it seems, by the time of Homer and Hesiod the option of establishing a real monarchy, if it ever existed, was long gone. Accordingly, in archaic Greece there never was a ‗monarchy‘ properly speaking; ‗kings‘ did not disappear, they never existed, and thus the traditional terminology (‗kings‘, ‗kingship‘, ‗monarchy‘) should be eliminated from our books.‖7

Raaflaub‘s phrases ―a real monarchy‖ and ―‗monarchy‘ properly speaking‖ draw attention to an issue of semantics and, in relation to the word ‗king‘, the issue of an appropriate definition. Furthermore, denial of the existence of a prior monarchy clearly challenges the tradition of scholarship concerning the genesis of the Athenian office of βαζηιεύο.

(b) The Mechanism for the Origin of the Office of the Βαζηιεύο

If the monarchy from which the βαζηιεύο as an official is said to have emerged as a vestige was a monarchy ―properly speaking‖ is it likely to have come to an end by means of mere negotiation? And if it came to an end violently, is it likely that some significant vestige of it would not only be permitted to survive its downfall, but to be welcomed into a reconstituted

5 Barceló (1993) 210-211. Barceló‗s ―Oberpriester der Polis‖ is barely an improvement on Lewis Mumford‘s characterization of the βαζηιεύο as ―a shrine lord‖: Mumford (1961) 144. For Mumford, loc cit., the βαζηιεύο was also ―chief king‖ or ―religious head of the state.‖ 6 Drews (1983). See the generally adverse reviews by, inter alios, Cartledge (1983); Thomas (1983); Rhodes (1984a); Donlan (1984); Stockton (1985); and Fisher (1986). Drews challenged established ―doctrine‖, thus Rhodes (1984a) 180-181. 7 Raaflaub (1993) 79. 8

state as a significant centre of power or influence? On the other hand, if the monarchy was not a monarchy ―properly speaking‖, are we entitled to imagine that the vestige of it that was permitted to remain might still have been an office of substance? How could the vestige be one of substance if the thing from which it emerged was not?

Felix Jacoby posited that the collapse of the monarchy in Athens involved revolution:

―I consider the institution of an annually changing ἄξρσλ beside the βαζηιεύο (who need by no means have simultaneously become an annual ‗official‘) to be a single and revolutionary action of the nobility. We know nothing of the preceding conflicts.‖8

Needless to say, we know of no revolution either. In any event, Carlier rejected Jacoby‘s view, arguing for a gradual process.9

But of no less importance is the issue of the nature of the monarchy that is said to have been displaced. That issue has tended to be elided and the assumption made that the displaced monarch was a priest-king, the priest part of whom was, as a matter of logic, left as a vestige. For instance, to Sir James Frazer it was ―not improbable in itself‖ that ancient ancestral monarchies gave way to officials called ‗kings‘, but exercising only religious jurisdictions, the implication being that the ancestral monarchs were priest-kings.10 The title ‗king‘, or ‗βαζηιεύο‘ in the case of the Athenian official, is thus taken to indicate the genesis of the title holder from a priest–king.11

This has in fact informed the interpretation of the Roman office of the rex sacrorum. Hence, Hocart:

―We know less about ancient Roman kingship [compared with Greek and Egyptian], and possibly could never guess at the divinity of Romulus, Numa,

8 Jacoby (1949) 347 note 23. 9 Carlier (1984) 371-372. cf. Ehrenberg (1968) 13: ―The whole development took place as a kind of peaceful revolution; monarchy in Greece—apart from tyrannis—never became the hated concept it was to be in Rome.‖ 10 Frazer (1905) 30. 11 The title ‗βαζηιεύο‘ continues to be taken to be informative in this way, for instance Kearns p. 271 below. 9

Tarquin and the rest, did not other countries show us how to interpret the survivals.‖12

In fact, Nettleship and Sandys defined the rex sacrorum by reference to the Athenian βαζηιεύο.13 Latte did the same, though with reference to the Greek states generally:

―Ohnehin erwartet man nach den Analogien, die die Entwicklung der griechischen Staaten bietet, zunächst den rex an der Spitze des Sacralwesens zu sehen . . .‖14

Similarly, Fustel de Coulanges claimed that the Athenian βαζηιεύο and the Roman rex sacrorum are comparable:

―Les Romains, pas plus que les Grecs, ne crurent pouvoir abolir cet antique pouvoir sacerdotal que l'on appelait la royauté. Les Grecs eurent toujours un βαζηιεύο, les Romains eurent un rex, même dans le régime républicain. Seulement, ce roi n'eut plus que les attributions religieuses, et on l'appela rex sacrorum ou sacrificulus.‖15

However, the comparison is superficial and unproductive.16 First, the Roman story of the origins of the office of rex sacrorum is arguably merely a copy of the Greek story. Second, the alleged trajectory of the office of rex sacrorum differs significantly from that for the Athenian βαζηιεύο. In the Roman story the rex sacrorum remained an office for life and at some point fell under the office of Pontifex Maximus. Third, it cannot be ignored that the title of the Athenian office is an unqualified ‗βαζηιεύο‘; Rome‘s office of the rex is qualified by ‗sacrorum‘. There was obviously in Rome a different perspective in relation to the office of rex

12 Hocart (1927) 9. 13 Seyffert (1895) 541, s.v., Rex Sacrōrum (or Rex Sacrĭfĭcŭlus): ―He resembles the archōn băsĭleus of the Athenian constitution.‖ 14 Latte (1960) 195. 15 Fustel de Coulanges (1877-1919) s.v. ‗regnum‘ (βαζηιεία). 16 It has to be acknowledged that in their respective origins the offices can be seen to fall within the topos of transition from a last king who was bad: hence, the stories of the fate of Hippomenēs of Athens, of Meltas of Argos, of Aristodēmos of Messene, and of Tarquinius Superbus of Rome. 10

compared to that in Athens in relation to the βαζηιεύο. Besides, Rome was Rome, Athens, Athens.17

(d) Comparing the Overthrow of Monarchy in Rome and Athens

De Sanctis argued in regard to the rex sacrorum that the rex represented the original monarchy in a state of extreme decline, obviating the need for a violent overthrow.18 For Greece, Momigliano saw an active process:

―We observe a tendency to get rid of kings as political and religious leaders and to avoid endowing their successors with religious powers. Certain specific religious ceremonies were considered inseparable from kingship and therefore had to be left in the hands either of the natural descendants of the kings . . . or of elected officials who were called kings for the sake of continuity.‖19

Latte could not see how the transition of the office of rex sacrorum exercising authority in its own right to a position subordinate to the office of Pontifex Maximus, a transition which he dated to not earlier than the mid 4th century BCE, would have been peaceful:

―Es ist nicht anzunehmen, daß der Opferkönig eines Tages friedlich zugunsten des Pontifex auf die Leitung des Sacralwesens verzichtet hat, um so weniger, als die zentrale Stellung des Pontifikalkollegiums anscheinend in den Aufgaben der ‗Wegebereiter‘ keineswegs von vornherein angelegt war. Es muß der energische Machtwille einzelner Träger des Amts gewesen sein, der sich hier in kürzeren oder längeren Kämpfen durchgesetzt hat.‖20

It is difficult to imagine that the transition from the rex to the rex sacrorum, whether by degrees or in one step, and whether occurring analogously or otherwise with the alleged transition in Athens, could have been peaceful either, given that that transition in its nature would presumably have been far more momentous than the subordination of the office of rex

17 cf. Bloch (1953) 412 referring to the fallacy‘ of relying ―on Roman evidence for reconstructing in detail an institution [the exēgētes] of Plato‘s Athens‖. 18 De Sanctis (1956) Volume 1, 389. Raaflaub (2005a) 19-20 expresses an adverse view 19 Momigliano (1969) 15-16. See also Meyer (1964) 37-38; De Martino (1972) Volume 1, 223; and Burkert (1985) 50. 20 Latte (1960) 195-196. 11

sacrorum to the office of Pontifex Maximus. Latte‘s underlying assumption is that the respective offices (rex sacrorum and Pontifex Maximus) were held to be of great significance and not easily toyed with. In any event, the important point for present purposes is that the manner in which the transition that Latte refers to is, as Latte clearly considered it to be, a proper subject for careful analysis. That being so, every effort is warranted to expose to rigorous examination the orthodox presumptions in relation to the seminal event, the alleged transition in Athens of priest-king to annual priest.

(e) The Bαζηιεύο and the Rex – An Historiographical Feedback Loop

It is perhaps the case that the orthodoxy concerning the genesis of the Athenian βαζηιεύο has become part of a feedback loop, or of a metaphoric coupled harmonics, in which the orthodoxy is taken to illuminate the nature of the archaic Roman kings, and that illumination in turn builds confidence in the orthodoxy which is its source. It has thus become commonplace to equate the rex sacrorum and the Athenian βαζηιεύο, and offer them as two examples proving a rule.21 In reality the ‗rule‘ is no more than an hypothesis for which there is no extant contemporaneous evidence, and which on close examination, is open to be considered unreasonable.

The operation of the posited feedback loop can be seen in Hocart, where he projected the traditional view of the origins of the rex sacrorum and the Athenian βαζηιεύο into the grand issue of the separation of church and state:

―. . . until recent times no people had carried it [the separation of priest and king] as far as the Greeks and Romans: when they abolished the monarchy the king‘s sacerdotal functions were all bestowed on an official known as the king- magistrate or the king of ritual, who had nothing whatever to do with matters of state. The decadence of Rome brought about a relapse into the old confusion of priest and king . . . [Yet in the medieval world and later] the conflict raged between Church and State until both agreed to differ and to respect each other‘s sphere of influence. The modern world has thus at last arrived at that

21 cf. Schmitz in relation to the conferral of the title of ‗king‘ on the ‗second archon‘: ―In like manner, the title rex sacrorum was retained at Rome after the abolition of kingly power; probably because in matters relating to the gods it was thought impious to make any important change, even if it should be merely a matter of form.‖ Schmitz (1851) 155 second note. 12

clear differentiation of king and priest which the Greeks and Romans achieved long before.‖22 (Emphasis added).

By way of example of the backflow consider Macurdy who argued that because the wife of the rex sacrorum had the title regina sacrorum perhaps the wife of the Athenian βαζηιεύο had a title equivalent to βαζηιεύο before the 4th century BCE. Precisely why that should be so, or should even be possibly so, Macurdy did not say.23

The scholarship in relation to the rex sacrorum strongly supports the concept of the separation of that office from matters of state, assuming the term ‗matters of state‘ has heuristic value in the way Hocart used it. But that is not a justification for transference of the conclusions of that scholarship to the Athenian office of βαζηιεύο.

(f) The Perception of the Office of Athenian βαζηιεύο as in Origin a ‗Religious‘ Office

If the Athenian βαζηιεύο was not a vestigial priest-king, whether because there was no relevant monarchy in respect of which he could have been a vestige, or because no such monarchy would on its collapse have left such a vestige, both the genesis and the nature of the office as traditionally conceived are thrown open to question. The reason is that the office of the Athenian βαζηιεύο is traditionally conceived as a religious office, and the ready explanation was that he was in origin a holdover from a monarchy whose power was divinely ordained. Thus, when Hauvette-Besnault began his thesis with the words

―In omnibus veterum civitatibus regem fuisse principio summum sacerdotem, vulgo convenit: quemadmodum enim patrem in unaquaque gente gentiliciis sacris, quae ad communes omnium gentium deos pertinebant‖24 he did so within the same mental framework that still today seems to be the compulsory starting point for anyone about to contemplate the Athenian βαζηιεύο: a mental framework within which there is centrally placed an ancient religious monarchy (even if it has to be pushed back to the Bronze Age) of which the Athenian βαζηιεύο is a remnant.

22 Hocart (1927) 129. 23 Macurdy (1928) 282. 24 Hauvette-Besnault (1884) I. 13

The issues raised by the abandonment of the traditional explanation for the origins of the office of Athenian βαζηιεύο are wide-ranging. They have implications for the search for the origins of the word βαζηιεύο, insofar as that search has to any degree been prejudiced by the strong traditional association of the word with ‗religious‘ officialdom in the context of archaic and classical Greek history. And, quite apart from the philological implications, they require a reassessment of that association itself. Thus, the present work seeks to re-evaluate the traditional association of the office of Athenian βαζηιεύο with the exercise of ‗religious‘ responsibilities. Furthermore, if the genesis of the office was not the collapse of a monarchy, the traditional date for which is the early 7th century BCE, the issues arise of how and when the office of Athenian βαζηιεύο was first established.

C The Literary Sources

Four sources that are particularly pertinent to the present study are: (1) the works of Homer and Hesiod; (2) the Athenaion Politeia (hereinafter the Ath. Pol.); (3) the forensic speeches, in particular Demosthenes, Apollodoros and Lysias; and (4) Herodotus and Thucydides.

Before specific problems with these sources are addressed it is well to recall that underlying all the fields of classical Greek studies are sources which have more or less controversial transmission backgrounds. To take an example, consider Herakleides in relation to his epitome of the Athenian Politeia. To begin with, who was he? Bloch discusses four of the possibilities: Herakleides Pontikos (contemporaneous with Aristotle); Herakleides Lembos (2nd century BCE); Herakleides Pontikos the Younger (1st century CE); and a Herakleides dated sometime in the 3rd to 6th centuries CE. Bloch argues for Herakleides Lembos.25 Obviously the date is important to assessment of the reliability of the text. An epitome written two centuries or so after the original is, ceteris paribus, presumably less authoritative than one written contemporaneously. But far more serious is the transmission issue. As Bloch demonstrates, the epitome that we have is abridged after centuries of manipulation of manuscripts. It consists of ‗fragmenta excerptorum‘ if not worse, ‗excerpta excerptorum‘. This background problem in

25 Bloch (1940). 14

relation to the ancient texts is easily forgotten, but it needs to be constantly in mind if only to restrain over-strident assertions as to what was ‗true‘ of the ancient Greek past.26

(a) Homer and Hesiod

Homeric epic poetry and Hesiodic didactic poetry may or may not be contemporaneous with any significant socio-political developments in Athens, and the original compositions may have shown no interest in Athens at all.27

Homer: Reece has argued from the unity of and embedded inconcinnities in the poems, along with the absence of multiple versions and the time-fixed quality of their Kunstsprache, that the poems are the product of

―a scribal transcription of a performance orally delivered by a historical Homer in the eighth century and thereafter for the most part, except for some surface corruption, fixed in its form.‖28

There is no historical memory of what for archaic Greece would have been the monumental achievement of the writing down of the tens of thousands of hexameter lines of the poems, presumably in multiple copies?29

Among the numerous issues is also the issue of whether what we have is a faithful record of an original oral–dictated text, or an evolved narrative not crystallized until perhaps as late as the Hellenistic period.30

And just as Heisenberg established that the observer and the observed cannot be separated in the observation, the composer and his subject are not separable in the composition. We can

26 Allowance needs also be made for a genre of ancient Greek writing that warrants the title ‗Schwindelliteratur‘: See Pearson (1987) 9. For the broader context of Lügendichtung see Weinrich (1966). For an even broader context see Campbell (2001). 27 This draws attention to the issue of panhellenism and Homer. See Raaflaub (2006) 458. And see in general Morris (1986); Raaflaub (1997a); and Osborne (2009) 150-152. For a review of a variety of issues with a substantial bibliography see Wiener (2007). 28 Reece (2005) 44. cf. Morris (2009) 77, and references. In regard to the date see also recently Osborne (2009) 152 and West (2011a). 29 cf. Morris (2009) 77, and references. In regard to the date see also recently Osborne (2009) 152. 30 cf. Reece (2005) 44-45. 15

never know how much of ‗Homer‘ there is in Homer.31 The poems gives us their view of the world, and we do not know how idiosyncratic that view is.32

Hesiod: Homeric epic and Hesiodic didacticism have different purposes and themes. The interests of Hesiod are in general, unlike those of Homer, not concerned with characters and incidents of the post-heroic period.33 In characterizing Hesiod‘s Works and Days as wisdom literature having ―particular affinities with the long-established wisdom traditions of the Near East‖, Martin West says of Hesiod‘s βαζηι῅εο: ―[they] are obviously rulers on a very parochial scale; it might be more realistic to describe them as local squires.‖34 If there are problems in relying on Homer for the nature of dark-age/archaic Athenian socio-political structure there could hardly be fewer in relying on Hesiod‘s ‗Boiotian squires‘.35

(b) The Athenaion Politeia

In many ways the Ath. Pol. raises more questions than it answers. Separate from the issue of the Ath. Pol.‘s adequacy in what is thought it purports to do, there is the more fundamental issue of whether the Ath. Pol. is telling the truth. In that respect, whilst it is reasonable to think and strongly arguable that the author relied on certain others,36 the ‗others‘ are no more accessible to scrutiny in the requisite terms than the author himself.37

31 The controversy over the date of ‗Homer‘ draws in other issues, not least whether the works are the product of a single author. There is a school of thought that would have it that there was an 8th century poet who gave us an oral precursor to a poem written down in about 650 BCE which was edited in Athens sometime after 600 BCE or even significantly later. Under this view there were in effect three successive Homers; a troubadour, a scribe and a meddler, separated one from another by perhaps a century. See the two contributions by the so-called Neoanalyst Ernst Heitsch in Heitsch (2001). See also West (2011b). 32 Contrast Havelock (1963) 88-89. And consider the observation of Maddoli (1970) 10 and note 8, in regard to the scope available to the bards for invention, that there was little ―libertà lasciato al linguaggio personale degli aedi, all'invenzione dei caratteri, alla scelta del tema.‖ 33 cf. West (1985) 5: referring to the Theogony and similar works: ―Such [genealogical] poetry differs from the Homeric type in that it is not primarily concerned with particular heroic exploits (though these are mentioned) and that its subject matter extends over generations instead of being events of a few days or weeks.‖ 34 West (1997) 306 and note 85. Rose (1992) 96 and 103 expresses a similar view. 35 Note however Raaflaub and Wallace (2007) 32-34 (and references) who refer to the equation by Ian Morris of the outlook of the Hesiod‘s farmers with ―the mesoi politai, ‗middling citizens‘ of Athens‘ classical democracy.‖ 36Sandys (1893) liv-lvii; and Rhodes (1992) 15-37; Kearney (1992) 39. For Androtion as a source see Bloch (1940) 352-353 and Jacoby (1949) 213. 37 Fritz and Kapp argued that the author was Aristotle on the basis that the range of Aristotle‘s style was wide, and could thus accommodate the ―very slovenly style‖ of the Ath. Pol: Fritz and Kapp (1974) 4-7. Contrast Sandys (1893) li who argued that it might not be Aristotle‘s work, in effect because the work is not slovenly enough. Compare again Rhodes who has argued that on grounds of style it is not Aristotle‘s work but that on grounds that it is ‗Aristotelian‘ it is perhaps the work of one of Aristotle‘s students: Rhodes (1992) 61- 63. Keaney (1992) 12- 16

Reliance for the purposes of historical scholarship on otherwise unsafe evidence does not have the sort of consequences that can arise from legal proceedings (conviction, incarceration, monetary penalties and so on) but such reliance cannot be acceptable simply because it is in such a sense inconsequential.38

In 1969 Lord Alfred Denning addressed the question of ‗weight‘ in relation to evidence:

―Nowadays we do not confine ourselves to the best evidence. We admit all relevant evidence. The goodness or badness of it goes only to weight, and not to admissibility.‖39

But as a source of evidence about the βαζηιεύο, the Ath. Pol. cannot be weighted, save perhaps where it is flatly contradictory. The Ath. Pol.‘s stance with respect to its reader is essentially one of ―believe it or not‖, calling for blind faith and sorely testing the asymmetrical relationship that necessarily exists between scholar and reader. We cannot know ―the goodness or badness‖ of it.40 Of course it might be found that in respect of some matter the Ath. Pol. is substantiated by reason of some other material that is objectively verifiable. But that only makes the Ath. Pol. superfluous as evidence in respect of the verified matter.

Furthermore, whether or not a constitution is written, what roles are played by its constituent institutions can be a matter of interpretation—it is not just a case of mere consultation of the written word. To an unknown extent the Ath. Pol.‘s author may simply have been giving his opinion as to the identity and role of the institutions that constituted the Athenian politeia. Because the author of the Ath. Pol., even if it is Aristotle, cannot be shown to have written about, and cannot be proved to have been experienced in, what can reliably be said in respect of Athens‘ political institutions it is not known if the author of the Ath. Pol. was an expert in

14 argues on the basis of linguistic closure patterns that Aristotle was the author, and takes strong issue (loc. cit. 5) in respect of this matter with Hignett (1952) 29. Having regard to all the other problems associated with the Ath. Pol., inter alia, errors and omissions, chronological anomalies (particularly in relation to Peisistratos in respect of whom the chronology in the Ath. Pol. is a shambles) and contradictions, the debate as to who composed it seems something of a luxury. On the chronological problems see in general Sumner (1961). 38 Perhaps also even in ancient Athens: see Demosthenes 57.4. 39 Gordon v. Hunter [1969] 1 All England Law Reports 451. 40 With respect to the alleged laws referred to in chapters 55-59 of the Ath. Pol., Rhodes argues that it is demonstrable that the author was working directly from them: Rhodes (1992) 612. But a case can be made that some alleged ancient Athenian laws reported in the forensic speeches are forgeries. See next page. 17

respect to the Athenian politeia.41 Nor is it known whether or not the Ath. Pol. was intended to be a finished work of serious scholarship.42

Whatever the case, posterity has in the Ath. Pol. a source of information about the office of βαζηιεύο which calls for extreme care in its use for that purpose.43 ―[T]heories of historical development and of political conflict must be taken with several pinches of salt, where they are based on the information of this author . . .‖

The forensic speeches purport to be prosecution or defence arguments prepared for what may or may not have been an actual trial. They are not proof of anything at all but as evidence of contemporaneous social conditions and attitudes, they may have some value. However, even for that purpose they have a number of serious shortcomings.

Their purpose is to effect victory at trial. They may exaggerate, distort and omit as best suits the case being advanced.

Secondly, they are one-sided. Seeking to advance a partisan position they do not give the other side of the case and the different picture of social conditions and attitudes that, relative to the opposing view, the other side will tend to portray.

Thirdly, they do not give argument on the law. Where a Speech purports to state the law, is the law correctly and fully stated? Was it applied to everybody, or only to those who were not wealthy enough to evade it? To what extent, if any, was the law enforced?44 Consider also that ―many of the documents in the speeches of the Attic orators are now widely considered forgeries composed after the Classical period.‖45

41 However, see Rhodes (1992) 25-27. 42 cf. Sandys (1893) l: ―The general avoidance of hiatus in this treatise implies that it is a finished work prepared for popular perusal and not a mere series of memoranda (or ὑπνκλήκαηα) for personal use.‖ 43 Badian (1971) 4. 44 It would be foolish to seek to determine the values even of modern societies solely by reference to their criminal codes, because the codes almost invariably contain obsolete laws, or laws that are not enforced, or laws that are enforced inconsistently. 45 See Canevaro (2010) especially 338 and references. 18

Fourthly, the Speeches were prepared for oral delivery, and of course we do not have access to any unwritten comment that can be supplied by ironic emphasis either by tone of voice or physical gestures.

Fifthly, the Speeches may be less a pointer to the social conditions and attitudes of the day than a skilful exercise in artifice. This is not to say with Cicero: ―Iudicis est semper in causis verum sequi, patroni non numquam veri simile, etiamsi minus sit verum, defendere‖,46 but it is the case that successful advocates either advance arguments that conform to or synchronize with public opinion, or, if necessary, arguments that are able skilfully to distort or even to subvert public opinion when the advocate argues a case that public opinion would otherwise oppose.47

Any reference in the present work to a speech from the corpus of Forensic Speeches is subject to the above reservations, along with any others specifically referred to.

(d) Herodotus and Thucydides

The reliability, or unreliability, of Herodotus in particular has been the subject of extensive writing.48 The use of Herodotus and Thucydides must be against a general background of reservation for the want in most instances of citation by them of specific, identifiable and examinable sources.

D Archaeology and Anthropology

Archaeology, archaeological theory and anthropological theory are necessarily sources in the present work, not only for the artifactual record from archaeology (the inscriptions and art of various sorts), but also for the archaeological/anthropological modelling that may help to make up for the absence or insufficiency of objective facts.

46 Cicero, De Officiis, II, 51. cf. Murdoch (1993) 105: ―We have to mix a little falsehood into truth to make it more plausible.‖ 47 Aristotle also considered the role of invention in forensic proof: Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1335b.36-7. And in general see also Aristotle Rhetoric 3.1404a; Plato: Gorgias, 452c-453a, Republic 6.493a-c, and Phaedrus 260a; Demosthenes: 9.1-5, 51.17, 58.40-43; and Isocrates 12.141. 48 For instance Fehling (1989) but cf. Pritchett (1993). In relation to Herodotus on the Cleisthenic period see also Raaflaub (1997b) 41 and id. (1997c) 87 with reference to Thomas (1989) . 19

However, the use of archaeological models also has a background of controversy, for instance, the controversy as to the relative merits of processualism and post (or anti)-processualism.49 References in this work to concepts from models of social evolution: ‗peer polity interaction‘, ‗secondary state formation‘, hierarchies (‗sequential‘ and ‗simultaneous‘), ‗heterarchy‘, and so on, are subject, inter alia, to any scepticism that arises from any claim to legitimacy that such concepts take from their origins in, or compatibility with, thinking from the natural sciences.50 Rather than confidence, reservation should perhaps be induced by such associations given the ongoing debate about the transferability of the results of evolutionary biology to human behaviour and social systems.51

E Words and Definition

Virginia Woolf said of words: ―They are highly sensitive, easily made self-conscious . . . they hate anything that stamps them with one meaning or confines them to one attitude, for it is their nature to change.‖52

That words do not have meanings fixed over time can be illustrated by reference to the word ‗constitution‘, a word of considerable importance in the present study because it is so widely used as a translation for the word politeia.

Cicero used the word constitutio with a meaning not dissimilar to the broad meaning of constitution today: an instrument that obviates the arbitrary exercise of political power.53 But Cicero‘s constitutio later came to mean merely the legislative acts of the emperor as in constitutiones principis; thus, for example, the Constitutio Antoniniana.54 The word had thus travelled in the imperial period a long way from its use by Cicero. But it had still further to go.

49 See the debate between David Small and Ian Morris in Small (1997a), Morris (1997) and Small (1997b). In general, see Trigger (1989) especially chapter 8. Processualism can be seen in a broader context of a crisis in classical archaeology and in Greek archaeology in particular, thus Morris (1994) 8-48. See also Clarke (1968) 12, 22-23; Gibbon (1989); Watson and Fotiadis (1990); Paddayya (1990); Yoffee and Sherratt (1993); Hodder (2004); Yoffee (2005) and Yoffee (2007). 50 Processualism took its cue from the work of systems biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, and in its modern context ‗heterarchy‘ has its origins in the work of Warren Sturgis McCulloch in the field of human cognition. 51 See in general on the socio-biology debate Burkert (1996) chapter 1; Segerstråle (2000); Clark and Grunstein (2000); Alcock (2001); Boyer (2001); Voland and Schiefenhövel (2009). 52 Woolf (1974) 13. For what follows cf. McIlwain (1947) 153-154 note 10. 53 Cicero, De re publica, 1.45. 54 The edict of Antoninus issued by Caracalla in AD 212. 20

In the 15th century, Jean de Terre Rouge (Jean de Terrevermeille) expressed by the phrase status publicus what Cicero meant by constitutio.55 In the following century Claude de Seyssel56 translated Jean de Terre Rouge‘s status publicus as ‗La Police‘ and ÒJohann Sleiden (Johannes Sleidanus), in his 1548 De Republica Galliae, a Latin translation of Claude de Seyssel‘s work, rendered La Police as ‗politia‘.57

Thus, by the time of Sleiden Cicero‘s constitutio had so far changed in meaning as to come to mean, at least within the milieu of Sleiden, something foreshadowing what is understood today by the word ‗politics‘, which is widely (if cynically) held to have a connotation which is the opposite of that of Cicero‘s constitutio.

The capacity of words to mutate in respect to their meaning reinforces the need to define words that are crucial in an analysis. Thus: ―[i]t is obvious . . . that while a definition cannot take the place of inquiry, in the absence of definitions there can be no inquiry – for it is the definition . . . which designates the phenomenon to be investigated.‖58 For example, to say of the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο that he was a ‗religious official‘ demands a definition of ‗religion‘. And hidden in the phrase ‗religious official‘ is the problem of what ‗official‘ is to be taken to mean. If it is to be said that the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο was a constitutional official it is necessary to state what ‗constitution‘ is to be taken to mean. In the case of both the words ‗religion‘ and ‗constitution‘ it is necessary to consider whether the words can be meaningfully applied to ancient Athens.59

F Historiographical Reasoning

(a) Abductive Argument

When Kevin Clinton asserted in reference to the selection of hearth initiates, ―[t]he fact that the basileus was involved tends to signify great antiquity for the institution‖, he reflected the use of

55 Jean de Terrevermeille (Terre Rouge) Tractatus primus (of three). 56 Claude de Seyssel (1519) La Grande Monarchie de France. 57 ÒJohann Sleiden (1548) De Republica Galliae. 58 Spiro (1996) 90. But note the caution of Sakellariou: ―Formal logic disapproves of the use of axiological, deontological or teleological elements in the establishment of definitions. In fact they have no universal validity.‖ Sakellariou (1989) 236. 59 Throughout this work the word ‗religion‘ generally appears in parentheses for reasons apparent from discussion at pp. 122ff. below. 21

a deductive argument that is frequent in the scholarship touching on the Athenian βαζηιεύο and which will be critically reviewed in the present work:60

The Athenian Basileus represents the ‗ancient and sacred‘ in classical Athens

The Athenian Basileus was associated with activity X

Therefore X was ancient and sacred in classical Athens.

Another type of argument, abduction, or reasonable guessing, can be illustrated by an argument made by Hans van Wees. He refers to the Pointe Lequin shipwreck (the ship, c. 515 BCE) near Marseilles which contained amphorae storage jars and was ―otherwise crammed with 2,500 Attic and Ionian drinking cups.‖ He assumes it was a trading vessel and goes on to say ―[t]he exponential rise in production of Athenian painted pottery in the second half of the 6th century must have been driven by the demands of traders‖.61 The argument, in effect, runs as follows:

The Pointe Lequin shipwreck was crammed with Attic drinking cups.

If the exponential rise in production of Athenian painted pottery in the second half of the 6th century had been driven by the demands of traders it would follow as a matter of course that there would be ships crammed with Attic drinking cups.

Therefore it is likely the exponential rise in production of Athenian painted pottery in the second half of the 6th century was driven by the demands of traders.

There is nothing in principle wrong with the argument, and perhaps the ship was a trading vessel, but the shipwreck is attended by no contextual facts at all thus allowing other equiprobable and incompatible hypotheses to account for it.

In any event, such reasoning, invariably implicit, is prevalent in modern classical scholarship, and it can have direct or indirect implications for how the Athenian βαζηιεύο is to be understood. In a broad context discussed in Chapter Five, the above example is of a class that

60 Clinton (1974) 100. 61 Wees (2009) 460 and references. 22

has indirect implications, concerning as it does the level of socio-economic development that can reasonably be assumed for archaic Athens.

(b) The Argument From Silence

The absence of hereditary monarchy in dark age Athens can also be ‗proved‘ abductively:

There is no objective evidence of hereditary monarchies having existed in Athens in the period from the ninth to the seventh centuries BCE.

If there were no such monarchies between the ninth and the seventh centuries in Athens, it would be a matter of course that there would be no objective evidence of such monarchies having existed.

Therefore, it is likely that there were no hereditary monarchies in Athens between the ninth century and the seventh centuries BCE.

This argument is dependent on silence as evidence, but it is not necessarily weaker for that. Silence can be evidence when we are entitled to consider what we should expect, so to enable us to give force to generalizations drawn from the disappointment of that expectation?62

Yet the argument as presented above is facile. It makes no concession for the possibility that the absence of the requisite evidence is due to something other than the non-existence of hereditary monarchies. To be effective, argument from silence needs corroboration from other evidence which impinges, for instance by way of ellipsis, on the issue. It is on this basis that an argument from silence in relation to the nine archons will be put forward in Chapter Five.

G Plan of the Work

There are seven chapters.

Chapter One concerns the notion of a Mycenaean Athens. Modern scholarship not infrequently refers to the annual βαζηιεύο in terms suggesting a Mycenaean genesis for the office. Furthermore, a precursor for the word ‗βαζηιεύο‘ probably occurs in Linear B, and it is appropriate to consider what the precursor may have meant in that language.

62 cf. Brent Shaw and Richard Saller in their introduction to Finley (1981) xxi: ―. . . attention to what would be expected in certain contexts lends force to generalizations drawn from its absence.‖ 23

Chapter Two concerns the definition of monarchy, and monarchies are distinguished there by reference to modes of justification of political power. These distinctions are tested against the sources to determine whether or not monarchies existed in Athens; what their nature was if they did; and, whether or not the origin of the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο can be found in them.

Chapter Three considers Athenian ancestral rites and examines the orthodoxy that associates the annual βαζηιεύο with such rites. The meaning of the notion of Athenian ancestral rites is examined against the ancient sources in respect to the role of the annual βαζηιεύο, and it is argued there that both the idea of ancestral rites, and any association with them of the annual βαζηιεύο, are vague and ambiguous at best. It is also argued there that given the extremely weak or non-existent connection of the Homeric βαζηι῅εο with ancestral rites, or with any ritual practices concerning the gods, the nexus of the annual βαζηιεύο with ancestral rites in the traditional account of the office is unexplained if the annual βαζηιεύο is to be held to have emerged from the Homeric βαζηι῅εο. It is also argued there that there has been an unjustifiable ascription to ancient Athenian culture of modern conceptions of religion, and that the description of the annual βαζηιεύο as a ‗religious official‘, a notion ubiquitous in the modern scholarship, is essentially meaningless.

Chapters Four and Five review the traditional vision of the Athenian βαζηιεύο within the broader context of the archonship in the period from Kreōn, the canonical first eponymous archōn (traditional date 684 or 683 BCE), to the βαζηιεύο Onēsippos (c. end 5th/beginning 4th century BCE. It is not until in respect of the period from about 350 BCE that there is a reasonable body of material to work with in attempting to understand the nature of the office of βαζηιεύο, so that even up to the last known βαζηιεύο prior to that period, the βαζηιεύο Onēsippos, we can do little more than speculate. In short, the Archaic/Classical division of time is discarded for a division marked first by the period Kreōn to Onēsippos and then by the Demosthenic period defined for present purposes as the period c. 380 BCE to 323 BCE.

Thus, Chapter Four reviews the extant record in regard to the nine archons and the identified holders of the office of annual βαζηιεύο to the βαζηιεύο Onēsippos, not later than the early 4th century BCE. 24

In Chapter Five it is argued that if the extant historical record, and what can be inferred from it, gives a correct impression of what constituted Athens from Kreōn until towards the end of the 6th century BCE, the institutions of the nine archons, and the triarchy of Archon, βαζηιεύο and Polemarch, arguably did not exist before the end of the 6th century BCE.

Chapter Six reviews modern conceptions of political constitutions and political office to provide a context for a critical review of the literary, epigraphical and artistic record of the Demosthenic period in regard to the office of βαζηιεύο. It is argued there that strident assertions about the actual status and role of the βαζηιεύο are not warranted after a close study of the theoretical underpinnings of the sources, both in respect to what they are taken to assert about the political/legal and ‗religious‘ context for the office of βαζηιεύο, and in respect of what they assert by way of facts about the office.

Chapter Seven concludes that many previous studies have too readily accepted accounts in the ancient sources in regard to the Athenian office of βαζηιεύο, and this has been combined with an insufficiently critical attitude to the real weight, or lack of weight, of the ancient evidence. In the result, the annual office of βαζηιεύο, used in effect as a trope, has often been allowed to become an argument of last resort.

Chapter One

The Notion of an Athenian yZn (wanax)

CONTENTS

A Mycenaean Attica 26

B yZn (wanax) and YcMt (gwasileus) 27

w (a) YcMt (qa-si-re-u / g asileus) to βαζηιεύο 27

(b) The Status of a yZn (wanax) and a YcMt (gwasileus) 32

(d) The Nature of the Athenian Wanax 44

(i) wanax/Fάλαμ 45

(ii) gwasileus/βαζηιεύο 48

(e) The Problem with Generalizing from Linear B 49

C Athenian Wanaktes Remembered? 50

D The Role of the Wanax With Respect to Ritual 56

E Conclusion to this Chapter 60

Chapter One

The Notion of an Athenian yZn (wanax)

A Mycenaean Attica

In his foreword to the first edition of Ventris & Chadwick, and with the discovery and decipherment of Linear B in mind, Alan Wace counselled: ―In culture, in history and in language we must regard prehistoric and historic Greece as one indivisible whole.‖63 But does the Athenian office of βαζηιεύο originate in some specific way in the Mycenaean period?

The consensus of opinion is that Attica avoided specific changes elsewhere in Greece that invasion theories for the collapse of Mycenenian civilization seek to explain.64 Thus, there is no evidence in Athens of the destruction around 1200 BCE that is manifest at Mycenaean Pylos, Mycenae, Thebes and Tiryns. Although after subsequent development at Athens, in particular on the Acropolis, the evidence might itself be expected to have been destroyed. On the other hand, Athens does not seem to have avoided the general post-Mycenaean decline in Greece, although the decline should not be conceived of as sharp or uniform everywhere in Greece, but rather as a process extended unevenly over a period of some two centuries.65

By the 1930s it was apparent that in relation to Mycenaean civilization, Athens was a curiosity if not an anomaly.66 Mycenaean remains there were relatively sparse, yet it is apparent that both to Athens‘ north and its south there had been many centres of Mycenaean civilization. In 1932 Nilsson67 reported on the Cyclopean wall around the summit of the Athenian Acropolis; Mycenaean sherds and a hoard of bronze utensils nearby; a bee-hive tomb at Archanai (Menidi); a tumulus at Aphidna; necropolises near the modern Markopoulo; chamber tombs at

63 Reproduced in Ventris and Chadwick (1973) xxxv. See also, in regard to periodization, Green (1992) 39 and Thalmann (1998) 249-50. 64 Paul Cartledge stridently denies the Dorians: Cartledge (2002) 68. Compare his view with the traditional view in Hammond (1963) 76-77. For other theories to explain the end of the Bronze Age see Snodgrass (1971/2001) 311- 313; Drews (1993) passim; Hall (2009) 44. Osborne argues that the Dorian invasion story was an invention that the Spartans and the Athenians created for internal political purposes: Osborne (2009) 47-51 and 119. 65 cf. Hurwitt (1999) 81. And see Kilian (1988a) 294, reporting that the citadel at Tiryns was completely rebuilt in the Late Helladic IIIb period, and also Rutter (1992). In regard to Athens see Welwei (1992) 50-53 and 60-65. 66 ‗Athens‘ is not here a reference to the city-state of Athens but rather the area of and about the Athenian Acropolis. Unless the context otherwise indicates, any reference to ‗Attica‘ in what follows is intended to refer to no more than the geographical area with its indefinite boundaries to which the name ‗Attica‘ is commonly applied. 67 Nilsson (1932) 159-161. 27

Spata; Mycenaean sherds at Brauron, Thorikos and Phaleron; and Mycenaean tombs near Brauron and at Porto Raphti, Thorikos, Haliki and Eleusis. However, for all that, there is nothing in Attica on the scale of the structures found at, for example, Dimini, Kastro and Pefkakia near Volos,68 Thebes, Orchomenos, and Gla in Boiotia, Dymaia in Achaia,69 Pylos in Messenia, at Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea in the Argolid, and the so-called ‗Menelaion‘ in Laconia.70 It cannot be assumed that whatever can be reasonably said about the structure of Mycenaean societies deduced from the archaeological record at such sites as these, and from the striking cemeteries at, for example, Dendra near Midea and Pellana in Northern Laconia, applied equally at Athens.71 We may not even be able to talk in terms of probabilities.72 However, very pertinent for present purposes is the argument for a Mycenaean precursor for the word ‗βαζηιεύο‘‘.

B yZn (wanax) and YcMt (gwasileus)

w (a) YcMt (qa-si-re-u / g asileus) to βαζηιεύο

Linear B is presently and tentatively dated as having originated in the 15th century BCE.73 Its lexicon is arguably an Archaic Greek dialect, now called ‗Mycenaean Greek‘, which echoes in the alphabetic Greek that emerged centuries later.74

In 1952-1953 Michael Ventris had noticed a pattern of inflection in Linear B corresponding to the type of inflexion found in the alphabetic Greek word βαζηιεύο75 and in addition a corresponding pattern in relation to the variation of feminine and neuter forms in perfect participles. These patterns are unique to alphabetic Greek, and it seemed unlikely to Ventris

68 Dimini is still not fully published but see Adrimi-Sismani (2007) 161-168, and Pantou (2010). 69 See on Dymaia, Taylour (1983) 106. 70 There are many other sites and structures that could be referred to. 71 The archaeology of Athens in the Mycenaean period is reviewed in Lemos (2006) 505-517. 72 New discoveries continue to be made. Linear B, as yet unpublished, has been found in recent excavations at Ayios Vasileios near Sparta; at Iklaina near Pylos; and possibly also at the site of ancient Thorikos. 73 See in general Palaima (2010). 74 However, see Hammond (1963) 79 and Snodgrass (1971/2001) 299-304 regarding anomalies in the Linear B lexicon for which a possible explanation is the presence within it of elements of an unknown language, or at least of words which, if Greek, ceased to be used before the historical period. 75 It has diphthongal stems as follows: nominative, vocative, -εῦ, -εύο, accusative, -έα, genitive, -έσο dative, -εῖ) 28

that what he was seeing could have been mere coincidence. Thereupon, he abandoned his belief that Linear B was an Etruscan language and proceeded to decipher it as Greek.76

But whilst the orthogonal characteristics of βαζηιεύο do not require any ad hoc adjustments of the decipherment rules of Linear B in order for βαζηιεύο to be identified with the Linear B word YcMt (qa-si-re-u), βαζηιεύο remains a word about which there is serious debate as to whether its etymological path crosses through Linear B. A distinction needs to be made in this context between those who have considered the decipherment of Linear B as Greek to be entirely misconceived, and those who have had a specific issue with the identification of YcMt (qa-si-re-u) with βαζηιεύο. Chadwick77 advocated the equivalence of YcMt and βαζηιεύο, but Palmer was cautious in relation to βαζηιεύο, referring to what he called ‗the semantic gap‘ that results from including the word in the Mycenaean Greek lexicon.78 In short, Palmer was not satisfied that βαζηιεύο was a Mycenaean Greek word.79 Chadwick referred to the equation qa- si-re-u/βαζηιεύο as follows:

―The equation of qa-si-re-u with the classical βαζηιεύο can hardly be doubted, but it is still uncertain what was the status of the individuals who bore this title. Palmer . . . goes so far as to question the identification with βαζηιεύο, insisting that they are merely ‗foremen‘ in charge of groups of smiths. This caution seems unjustified, but the semantic value in Mycenaean must be ‗chief‘, from which it is easy to see how the sense of ‗king‘ developed after the collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms ruled by wanaktes.‖80

In order to explain what Palmer saw as a problem it is necessary to briefly review the structure of Linear B, to see how YcMt (qa-si-re-u) and βαζηιεύο can be identified with each other, and to consider what YcMt may have meant.

Most of Linear B‘s 89 or so phonemic signs stand for syllables rather than for individual phonemes and the basis of the decipherment of the Linear B is the assumption that the

76 Note also Alice Kober‘s contribution, Kober (1946), and see on this Taylour and Chadwick (2004) 207-208. 77 Chadwick (1967) 115. 78 Palmer (1963) 228. Palmer translated pa2-si-re-u as ‗master-craftsman‘: Palmer (1963) 138, see also 228, 280 and 283. 79 Palmer (1963) 39. 80 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 408. 29

language is a syllabary. Once Linear B was assumed to be a syllabary, the decipherment task became the accurate assignment of phonic values to the signs. In the early decipherment of Linear B as alphabetic Greek it was found that in a few cases different signs seemed to have the same value. In some cases the same value would have to be assigned to as many as three or more signs. For example, the sign transliterated as ‗pa‘ (h) was deciphered early in a number of known Greek words, and because it was presumed to be known how those Greek words were sounded, h, and two other signs, including the sign, Y(qa), seemed to share the same value. Early in the decipherment it was decided to distinguish such ‗homophones‘ as they were called, by writing them up in their transliterated form with a subscript numeral. In the transliterated word ‗pa2-si-re-u‘ the ‗2‘ in pa2 (Y) indicates that Y is homophonous with pa (h). Chadwick in due course rejected the idea of homophones, and in the case of pa2 recognized ‗qa‘. Hence, the 81 word YcMt previously transliterated pa2-si-re-u is now transliterated as qa-si-re-u.

There is by no means a neat fit between Linear B and alphabetic Greek. The decipherment is by means of rules generated by trial and error.82 Because of the small amount of Linear B text available (combined with its narrow subject matter) only a fraction of the alphabetic Greek lexicon can be seen in Linear B, and only a fraction of Linear B is decipherable as words found in alphabetic Greek. That is, there are many Linear B ‗words‘ for which there are no known alphabetic Greek cognates.

Sometimes the rules can seem contrived, and this can be the case in the process of deciphering YcMt as βαζηιεύο. No ad hoc rules are required in this case, but in other instances they are required.83 Fortunately, it is not on a basis as poor as this that βαζηιεύο is generally recognized in YcMt (qa-si-re-u). Applying the rules in relation to qa-si-re-u (YcMt) it is possible to generate βαζηιεύο. Thus:

81 u See Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 391-392. Chadwick‘s reasons for dropping pa2 are instructive: ―original *q a- became πα- in all Greek dialects, and two words spelt with pa1, pa (also pa-te, pa-si ) = π᾵ο and pa-ra-jo = παιαηόο, were thought to have had an initial labiovelar, thus showing that this development had already taken place in Mycenaean. We can now see that the etymologies proposed for these words are false, and we have a consistent distribution of qa in words of labiovelar origin distinguished from pa, which always represent a labial stop.‖ Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 386. 82 The rules are set out in Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 42-48 (also in Taylour and Chadwick (2004) 248-250). 83 See Hooker (1980) §93 in relation to ἔλεθα. 30

(i) The sound produced by the consonant ‗s‘ is not ‗written‘ into the end of a linear B word (as is also the case with sounds produced at the end of alphabetic Greek words by ‗l‘, ‗m‘, ‘n‘ and ‗r‘). Thus, ‗s‘ is added to qa-si-re-u (YcMt) to give qa-si-re-u(s).

(ii) The diphthong ‗eu‘ is represented by two signs M (re) and t (u). Thus, qa-si-re- u(s) becomes qa-si-eu(s).

(iii) Where there is a syllable in the alphabetic Greek word with a consonant-vowel- consonant structure Linear B does not have the consonant that closes the syllable. Supplying the ‗l‘ gives qa-sil-eu(s) (qasileus).84

Actually, qasileus is not the transcription given in the second edition of Ventris and Chadwick. The transcription given there is ‗guasileus‘ a rendering consistent with the belief that the word sounded as a labio-velar.85 It is generally rendered now as gwasileus, and sometimes as qwasileus.

In any event, if the decipherment rules are valid, there is clearly a good case for deciphering qa-si-re-u as βαζηιεύο.

After discussing the spelling rules for Linear B, Palmer said:

―. . . it will be evident that they allow great play to an interpreter who merely has recourse to the lexicon thus a group a-ko may represent ἄγσ, ἀγώλ, ἄγγσλ, ἄγνο, ἄρνο, ἀζθνο, ἀξγόο, ἄιγνο, ἄγρνο, ἄξρσ, etc.‖86

Hence, the decipherment is not strictly scientific, at least not in the sense of its being falsifiable. But neither is the theory of evolution by natural selection, with which the Linear B decipherment shares an element of tautology, although like Darwin‘s theory it is not for that less productive.

84 For the ‗r‘ and ‗l‘ set of consonants there is only one set of syllable signs with the result that in respect of these there is great scope for ambiguity. For example, M (re) can spell for ‗ιε‘, ‗ιε‘, ‗ξε‘ and ‗ξε‘. See Hooker (1980) §85. 85 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 576. Note that Mycenaean Greek is presumed to have used labio-velars whilst the sound for β is a voiced labial. Latin retained the labio-velar sound as evidenced by words such as the labio-velar quis (kwis) for which the equivalent Greek word is the dental tis. The analysis of numerous such instances in the difference between Latin and Greek helps to confirm the hypothesis that labio-velars had been used in Mycenaean Greek. 86 Palmer (1963) 27-28. 31

Palmer‘s problem in respect of βαζηιεύο included the fact that qa-si-re-u only occurs in connection with craft workers, so that a qa-si-re-u may have been some sort of foreman or manager of workmen. βαζηιεύο in later Greek contemplates a person of far more exalted status than the overseer of a workshop.87 Where he stitches the title βαζηιεύο to Achilles, Homer does not put us in mind of a ‗pay-clerk‘, and whilst Palmer does not quite go that distance, it remains the case that even if the qa-si-re-u was a dignitary of some sort he appears to have been no more than of secondary importance, and perhaps even a mere provincial. Lejeune, for example, noticed in the Pylos tablets that a qa-si-re-u in his capacity as a receiver of metal was consistently associated with a local centre. Thus, he concludes:

―Autant qu'on puisse le voir, dans l'état pylien, les βαζηιεῖο étaient des dignitaires provinciaux d‘importance secondaires . . .‖88

The position expressed by Palmer is difficult to accept in circumstances where Palmer did not question the overall validity of the decipherment of Ventris and Chadwick. How can a semantic gap be a valid basis for contention? Is there to be an overriding rule—the Linear B cognate has to be within the same semantic field as its later Greek equivalent? Such a rule would of course perfect the tautology referred to above.

Part of the problem is that βαζηιεύο has been, and is, so often translated as ‗king‘ that the semantic field of βαζηιεύο seems to be populated by only one word. However, Linear B has another word alleged to designate a ruler, lord, or king, and that word is also found in later

Greek. The Linear B word is wa-na-ka (yZn). The alphabetic Greek word is Fάλαμ.89 The ‗wa‘

87Palmer also had reservations based on linguistic considerations. Thus, Palmer (1963) 39: ―The existence in the syllabary of a system of oppositions plain:palatalized:labialized to the neglect of the oppositions voicleless:voiced:aspirate, which are essential to Greek, strongly suggests that the ancestral form of the syllabary was created for a non-Indo-European language. Such phonemic systems are found inter alia among Caucasian languages. The determination of the phonetic value of . . . [qa (pa2 )] remains uncertain. The overwhelming majority of occurrences are in place-names and personal names, and this alone suggests a sound of a non-Greek character.‖ 88 Lejeune (1961) 422. 89 Other forms have been noticed in Linear B: the genitive, Fάλαθηνο (wa-na-ka-to, yZnf), the dative Fαλάθηεη (wa-na-ka-te, yZns or wa-na-ke-te, yZms, and the adjective, Fαλάθηεξνο (wa-na-ka-te-ro, yZns>, thus, wanakteros (royal?). In relation to wa-na-ka-te and wa-na-ke-te, the latter, an instance of which is found in the Pylos tablets found in 1955, is the strictly correct version (under the spelling rules): see Hooker (1980) §116. Palmer (1963) 27 explains this anomaly as being a case where the spelling of the nominative tends to fix the spelling of the stem, and hence we get wa-na-ka-te. However, it is the prevalence of special cases in the decipherment that engenders scepticism. 32

(y) sound in the transition from wa-na-ka to Fάλαμ is explained by the presence in the Greek word of the obsolete character ‗F ‘ (digamma).90 With the ‗s‘ added and the dead vowel expanded by the ‗x‘ we have wanaks or wanax.91

Lesley Fitton in her 2004 Introduction to Taylour and Chadwick‘s ‗Mycenaeans‘ underscored the need for caution in coming to conclusions as to the semantic content of Linear B words.92 Hence, the discovered material is not only an account of language to do with mercantile activity but it may be confined to a limited area of that activity, the area that attracted the particular attention of the ‗wanaktes‘,93 conceived of as the rulers of the respective Mycenaean centres. Furthermore, the word YcMt (qa-si-re-u) in its various forms is attested as appearing in the material some 21 times; perhaps 9 times in the material from Knossos, and perhaps 12 times in the material from Pylos. The actual occurrences may be only 12 or so.94 In addition when the information stored in the extant Linear B records is examined, the occurrences do not give anything like a full context. Hence, any assertion as to the semantic range of YcMt has to be tentative, and certainly cannot exclude absolutely the possibility of closer concordance with the more exalted meaning that seems to be the unavoidable connotation of some of the uses of the word βαζηιεύο in later Greek.

(b) The Status of a yZn (wanax) and of a YcMt (gwasileus).

In addition, and obviously related to the specific problem of translation, there are a number of problems associated with the use of the Linear B material to determine the characteristics of Mycenaean society. To begin with, the relevant material for mainland Greece is mainly from

90 Digamma had disappeared by the historical period but only from some Greek dialects. That it survived into the historical period is suggested by the fact that the scansion of a number of passages in Homer is facilitated by assuming digamma is present, and by its presence in a number of cognates in other Indo European languages. See Hooker (1980) §89. 91 See in relation to dead vowels Hooker (1980) §84, and at §116 showing how the rule in relation to them is breached: interestingly in relation to the declension of wa-na-ka Palmer (1963) 26 points out that Linear B would not normally note the final consonant but that wa-na-ka belongs to an exceptional type which has a consonantal declension, a type which possesses what Palmer calls a ‗dorsal‘ stem. 92 Taylour and Chadwick (2004) xxii. 93 ‗Wanaktes‘ is a fabricated transliteration for a plural form of yZn (wanax). If wanax is a reference to a monarch it should not be surprising, given the characteristics of the provenance of the extant Linear B records that a plural form has not been found in Linear B. 94 See Chadwick (1969); Bennet and Olivier (1973) and id. (1976); Spyropoulos and Chadwick (1975); Godart and Sacconi (1978); Melena and Olivier (1991); Aravantinos (1987), and id (1990). In relation to the now all but fully published Linear B so far discovered at Knossos, Melena and Palaima (2001) and re. Thebes, Andrikou (2006). 33

Pylos, and to a lesser extent Thebes, and is in general confined to the relatively narrow chronological range of the latest ‗palatial‘ period, the end of the 13th century. Yet Mycenaean civilization is associated with the whole of mainland Greece, and is thought to have a chronology of over two centuries. The Linear B material thus gives a fractional time and space window, and in light of that, and the problems of decipherment, there is no sound foundation based on Linear B for the making of confident generalized claims about Mycenaean society.

The consensus of scholarship based on the Linear B material is that the wanax (yZn) was at the head of a leading hierarchy including in order: a lāwāgetās (Nyma, ra-wa-ke-ta) and telestās (sMa, te-re-ta). The lāwāge(r)tās is thought to have been a military commander and the telestai, landholders.95 Both the wanax and the lāwāge(r)tās are argued to have had a temenos.96 However, Palaima argues on rather thin evidence that there was a considerable distance between the wanax and the lāwāge(r)tās, so making the wanax truly pre-eminent.97

Reinforcing the view that a qa-si-re-u was not part of the leading hierarchy is the fact that the word YcMt is often qualified by a proper name, or some words giving context for the reference. By contrast the wanax is not named or contextualized, thus giving some justification for the proposition in modern scholarship that it was enough to write yZn for the ancient readers of the text to know to whom reference was being made.98

Some additional statements can be made about the qa-si-re-u (YcMt):

(i) in general

(a) he was a local official and not part of the palace;

95 None of this is settled. See, for example, the analysis of Nikoloudis (2006) of ra-wa-ke-ta (lāwāge(r)tās) reviewing previous understanding and leading to a better considered understanding of the role of this official. 96 Actually the alphabetic Greek word ηέκελνο is claimed to be recognized in Linear B. Thus, sJV (te-me-no). It is worth noting also Palmer‘s observation that ―in Homer the persons who have a temenos are precisely king and war-leader.‖ Palmer (1963) 84. But see Lenz (1993) 80, note 93.The etymology of ηέκελνο is discussed in detail in Lenz (1993) 73-82 arguing at 76 that ―the ηέκελνο probably had sacred associations even in Mycenaean times.‖ 97cf. Palaima (1996) 133-134. Some scholars dispute the idea that the wanax enjoyed an especially elevated position: See, for example, Lejeune (1971) Volume 1, 169-185. 98 cf. Yamagata (1997) 13. 34

(b) he is seen in connection with bronze working and in connection with kakewe (smiths) (from n,t (ka-ki-u), a smith/bronze-smith);99

(c) he is seen in connection with officials known as ko-re-te-re (.MsM) village officials (local government officials?) and po-ro-ko-re-te-re (l>.MsM) subordinates to the ko-re-te-re;100

(d) in respect to the industrial activity with which he is associated his actual presence was not necessary to that activity;101

(e) his role was purely secular102 by contrast with that of the wanax.103

(ii) Morpurgo-Davies argued that a qa-si-re-u was ―a very minor official who depended on the central authority but did not reside in the capital and could be dispatched to various places‖,104 and that he was ―an industrial functionary, seemingly on the non-Potnia side of the equation‖.105

(iii) Ruijgh made a number of arguments ex Homero about the meaning of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο, concluding that in the Mycenaean period wanax stood for ―souverain divin‖ (the ηέκελνο, a ―domaine royal‖), whilst gwasileus stood simply for roi in the sense of an ordinary or mortal king.106 But whilst analysis of Homer‘s use of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο may give us insight as to the contemporaneous meaning of the words, it is

99 Lindgren (1973) 67-69, 126-130. See also Hiller (1988). 100 For these terms see the glossary in Ventris and Chadwick (1973). 101 See Lindgren (1973) 127 in relation to certain Jn texts from Pylos. Incidentally, Lindgren, loc. cit., asks in relation to the qa-si-re-u, having regard to his association with the distribution of bronze: ―Was he perhaps a kind of state comptroller?‖ 102 Palmer (1963) 280 and 283. 103 It has been suggested that the word refers to a divinity (see next page). Palmer was of the view that the qa-si-re- u was within the secular realm: Palmer (1963) 280. For this Palmer relied on the Jn series of texts. For the terminology take for example Jn 431.6: ‗J‘ indicates the J series after the classification system of E. L. Bennett; ‗n‘ = bronze; the numeral (431.6) indicates the excavator‘s inventory number: See Palmer (1963) 4-5 in relation to Bennett‘s system. 104 Morpurgo-Davies (1979) 98-99. 105 Morpurgo-Davies (1979) 108. 106 Ruijgh (1999) 525-527. 35

asking too much to expect that it will yield any sort of reliable insight into their Mycenaean meaning.107

(iv) There is evidence that a wanax in one of the Pylian texts, PY Un 219.7, is ldCp (po-ti-ni-ja/potnia) a goddess!108

(v) Shelmerdine concludes from Knossos tablet As 1516 that ―gwasilēwes‖ likely ―derived their power from local communities . . .‖ and that ―[t]his would account both for their survival and their increased status after the palatial system collapsed.‖109 However, there is the obvious problem that what applied at Knossos did not necessarily apply everywhere else.

There can be no firm view as the status or role of a gwasileus other than that there was a significant socio-political distance between a gwasileus and the wanax, assuming ‗wanax‘ is a reference to a mortal, and not in fact a deity.110 Nevertheless, that a gwasileus was more than a very minor official seems to be established by the fact that if the decipherment of Linear B is correct, the word survived to become, as βαζηιεύο, the designation for figures, in general, far exceeding the most inflated modern estimations of the gwasileus.

The archaeological evidence consulted for insights into the appropriate characterization of the wanax includes the architectural layout and style of what are referred to as ‗the Mycenaean palaces‘ at the various recognized Mycenaean sites in Greece and on Cyprus along with their associated burial practices and grave goods. The Late Helladic IIIB2 structures, if taken to be

107 Drews (1993) 117-118 argues that the origins of the Homeric stories may be in Aeolic north Greece. If it is the case that Homer reflects sources significantly wider than, or in fact different from, Mycenaean Greece, projects of scholarship based on the exclusive ownership by Mycenaean Greece of Homeric sentiment would of course be thrown into disarray. 108 See Chadwick (1957). It is worth mentioning here that Athena is mentioned once in the extant Linear B record in a text from Knossos, KN 208. Thus: qaZldCp (a-ta-na po-ti-ni-ja, Athanāi Potniā—the Linear B words might not be separate). . 109 Shelmerdine (2008) 135 110 The possibility that wanax designates a deity cannot be ruled out. See Castleden (2005) 82 and references. And see Schmitt (2009) who takes a very conservative view of the wanax: indeed, for him, there was ―Kein König im Palast‖. cf. Shelmerdine (2008) 117 ―Tablet references make it clear that a Mycenaean state was ruled by a king‘ and see further loc. cit. 127-129 especially 128: ―nothing compels the . . . view . . . that wanax could refer to a god as well as a king, or that the king himself was regarded as divine like the Egyptian pharaoh.‖ cf. the diametrically opposite view of Walcott (1967) 54. 36

the remains of palaces, and if typified by those at Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos, have a great hall (megaron) with what many scholars believe is a hearth at its centre surrounded by four columns and a throne to the side.111 There is a contiguous secondary hall and each of the two halls has associated enclosures. This is based on observation and of course on interpretation. However, the scholarship may descend to hyperbole when the ‗palatial‘ architecture is considered with art and artefacts. It is argued for example that the content of frescoes at Pylos reinforces the importance of the megaron, 112 and Klaus Kilian said of the wanax of Tiryns that he ―quite literally had his throne on the edge of the Aegean Sea, on floors painted in a marine style, and was secular and religious lord of his territory.‖ Killian also asserted that the power of the wanax of Tiryns is obvious in the fact that the citadel at Tiryns was rebuilt in the course of two years or so in the Lower Helladic IIIB period.113 Assertions of this sort stretch to near (indeed to beyond) breaking point the inferences that can be drawn from known facts, and allow too little weight for the interpretive limitations of archaeology and art.114 Consider in this regard how far Kilian was prepared to go with the above facts and the following:

(i) the wealth found in Mycenaean ‗royal tombs‘;

(ii) a restored sceptre from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae;

(iii) an oversized figure depicted on a Pylos fresco (which Kilian submits is a picture of a procession led by the oversized figure, the figure being, according to Kilian, the wanax himself); 115

(iv) the association of symbolic griffins with Mycenaean palaces.116

111 See the observations of Palaima (1996) 125-126 regarding the significance of the hearth in Mycenaean ‗palace‘ architecture in relation to the importance of Hestia in later Greek society, and hence the hearth in the Prytaneion at Athens. 112Kilian (1984). A similar argument is made for an altar at Tiryns and the cult centre/megaron relationship at Mycenae. See Mylonas (1981). 113 Kilian (1988) 293-294. 114 A pertinent example of scope for archaeological interpretation is given by Laffineur (1995) 85 where he debunks arguments from archaeology used to support a theory that early Mycenaean kings as members of a presumed epic dynasty of Mycenae were commemorated in later Mycenaean times by the construction of Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Part of his argument adverts to the fact that the sphragistic use of seals does not have to mean the presence of official administration, still less of royal administration. He points out that even in Neolithic times seals were used to stamp vases. 115 Kilian (1988) 294 and note 1 (300). The fresco is discussed and reconstructed in Lang (1969) 39-40 and figure 119. It is by no means amenable to straightforward interpretation. See the discussion in Wesolowski (2006) and references. 37

From this Kilian concluded: ―In his sophisticated ideology the wanax displays a whole range of regal claims, from temporal power to unmistakable illusions to the religious sphere, and possibly also a certain godlike indifference.‖117

It is evident that there is a desire to find as much as possible, and perhaps even more, in the wanax. For instance, Thomas Palaima says of Ruijgh‘s reduction of the wanax to a ‗maître souverain‘,118 that Ruijgh ―settles for too little‖.119 Yet given the dearth of data, it may be courageous to ‗settle‘ for anything at all. In another instance, in response to negative assessments of Mycenaean rulers given in separate works by each of Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Sherratt and G. Kopcke, Palaima submitted: ―We would do well to assess the Greek past with more generosity . . . ‖!120

Processualism121 has been an attempt to get around the dearth of facts by transcending ―the limitations of traditional social anthropological analyses of static structures by studying not only structure-maintaining but also structure-elaborating (or morphogenetic) processes.‖122 Kilian thus concluded that ―the wanax of a Mycenaean kingdom became the social equivalent of Near Eastern and Hittite kings . . .‖123 thereby seeing the wanax as the end point of an evolutionary process from ‗proto-palatial‘ beginnings in Lower Helladic I and Lower Helladic II; a process that called for the wanax to formulate an ideology of the oriental sort to which Kilian alluded, and from which the wanax would have acquired his ―godlike indifference‖ if the possibility foreshadowed by Kilian was a realized fact.

But there are two obvious problems with Kilian‘s analysis: (1) it is open to be interpreted as implying that Mycenaean palace society was an inevitable outcome that should not surprise

116 See Lenz (1993) 81who tends to play down lion-gate symbolism. 117 Kilian (1988) 294. 118 Ruijgh (1999) 521. 119 Palaima (2006) 55. 120 Palaima (2007) 140. The works he refers to are: Deger-Jalkotzy (1996); Sherratt (2001); and Kopcke (2004). Nor is the excess abating. Relatively recently it has been argued that the Panathenaic festivals support theories of feasting at Pylos: Wesolowski (2006) 127. 121 Processualism, also called the ‗The New Archaeology‖, took on the ideas of the neo-evolutionist school of political anthropology. See in particular Fried (1967) and id. (1975); and Service (1971) and id. (1975). 122 Trigger (1989). 123 Kilian (1988a) 296. However, again, that conclusion is based on thin grounds, principally evidence of alleged th treaties involving the enigmatic place ‗Ahhiyawa‘ the subject of some extant c. 13 century BCE Hittite texts in respect of which some scholarship holds that Ahhiyawa is a location in Greece: see Gurney (2003) 158 and 291 and on this issue and more generally De Fidio (2008) 99-102. 38

us;124 (2) it suggests a minimum role for local differences between the various centres of Mycenaean power, so that from Pylos to Thebes the evolution to the palace and its wanax are to be presumed to have taken the same path.

The conceptual framework of processualism includes the concepts of ‗the Chiefdom‘,125 ‗secondary state formation‘,126 ‗prestige exchange and acquisition‘127 and ‗peer polity interaction‘.128 A case study in their purported explanatory power is given by James Wright.129

Wright accepts Kilian‘s analysis and argues that ‗kingship‘ was ―[o]ne of the most visible manifestations of Mycenaean palatial society‖. He insists that the Mycenaean palace system evolved from a prestate society, and he justifies the assumption of uniformity of Mycenaean societies by reference to observed facts: Linear B; the citadels; the crafts; and the evidence of interactions; and by the concept of peer polity interaction. However, Wright wanted to know what drove the process by which Mycenaean palatial society evolved from a pre-state society.

Wright defines ‗kingship‘ as:

―an inherited, superior, political authority vested in a single person, the king, who holds his position for life and who maintains his power through a manipulation of economic, militaristic and ideological forces that reinforce relationships determined by value and belief systems in a society.‖130

Whilst Wright insists that a chieftain is what a king had been, it is hard not to see in his definition as much a chieftain as a king.131

Wright explains the prevalence over central and southern Greece in the archaeological record of Late Helladic I and II of elaborate tombs, in particular tholos tombs, by the rise of chiefdoms

124 Compare Cherry (1983) who deals with this issue as it relates to Minoan Crete. 125 See, for example, Service (1971); Carneiro (1981); Earle (1987); and Earle (1991). 126 See Fried (1967) 198, 202, 240-242; Service (1971) 141; Price (1978). 127 See, for example, Mauss (1967); Earle and Ericson (1977). 128 Renfrew and Cherry (1986). This idea is not dissimilar to the concept of cluster interaction: see Price (1977). 129 Wright (1995) 64. 130 Wright (1995) 65. In the context of Wright‘s paper overall this definition is not decisive. That is perhaps fortunate because the definition could describe anything from the head of a patriarchal family estate to a shāhanshāh, whilst for good measure taking in certain types of drug lord. 131 Wright (1995) 65: ―the boundaries between the definitions of chiefdoms and kingdoms are not clear cut, for chiefdoms grade into paramountcies, and paramountcies into kingdoms . . .‖ It has to be acknowledged that Wright uses ‗paramount chief‘ interchangeably with ‗king‘. 39

that had evolved out of the depopulation of the Middle Helladic period. However, these chiefdoms were unequal, as evidenced by diversity in the quality of the goods and in their origin. What the goods illustrate

―is the common practice of marking status in all of these societies by artefacts manufactured of rare and exotic materials and largely manufactured in Neopalatial workshops or by Cretan craftsman working in the islands or the mainland, possibly by special commission. The evidence neatly conforms to the notion of prestige exchange networks . . .‖132

Wright observes also that the goods include weapons, tools and vessels, but above all symbolic items reflecting Minoan conceptual and ideological influences.133

Wright then explains the warrior tombs, the construction of monumental tholos tombs near palatial centres, and the first appearance of monumental edifices (the Cyclopean walls) at Pylos, Mycenae, Tiryns, Thebes (―probably‖),134 Orchomenos, Athens and the Menelaion in late Helladic IIB to Late Helladic IIIA1, by the conflict between the chiefdoms due to the inequality between them, and the consequent competition between them both for territory and for privileged access to Cretan sources of prestige goods.135 Although he did not expressly make the point, Wright here seemed to be relying on the notion of peer polity interaction, and perhaps also that of secondary state formation.

Wright expressly applied the notion of peer polity interaction in relation to the formation of ideology further to his conviction that ―the ideological evolution of a complex society has a distinct role in the formation of the structure of its head.‖136 Hence, the notion of peer polity interaction as formulated by Renfrew contemplates inter-polity homologies in respect of which Wright recognises language, belief and social organization in the Mycenaean chiefdoms, all stemming from the common Indo-European vernacular of the peoples of Greece. To these

132 Wright (1995) 69. 133 Wright (1995) 70. 134 Mycenaean Thebes underlies the modern city and calls for some guesswork in respect of its layout. 135 Wright (1995) 72-73. 136 Wright (1995) 73. 40

homologies Wright claims that uniform craft traditions, building forms and grandiose forms of burial practice are archaeological correlates.137

With all this Wright can then explain the Late Helladic Mycenaean ‗palace‘ system by what he describes, by reference to architectural forms and plans, iconography and crafts, as its ―uniformity‖ between centres. Thus, intolerant of differences, peer polity interaction will compel conformity to a style and an ideology. The chieftain becomes a wanax and the wanax- kingdoms settle into cooperative arrangements, or what Wright calls ―balancing (reciprocating) ties‖. Thus,

―[t]he position of the wanax-king was now formally sanctified through a complex iconography linking Minoan and Mycenaean ideologies. The power and authority of the wanax-king was probably directed toward public displays, in contrast to the private nature of chiefly demonstrations.‖138

Wright‘s approach depends heavily on the evolution of uniformity; without uniformity there is instability. However, the Mycenaean archaeological record shows a significant degree of non- uniformity. The construction of the ‗palaces‘ extends over a period of perhaps as much as two centuries or more. The so-called Menelaion is thought to have been first constructed in about 1450-1400; Pylos and Gla not before about 1350-1200. Consistent with this is significant variation in architecture. The Menelaion, for example, whilst in general comparable to Pylos, has a megaron, but it does not have the central hearth, the columns or the ‗throne‘ and there is no evidence of decoration. Pylos is a significant elaboration on the Menelaion, and this notwithstanding that the Menelaion is thought to have been rebuilt in late Helladic IIIB, the same period in which Pylos was constructed. Over the ‗palaces‘ as a whole there are variations in other features such as the presence or absence of court entrances (found at Tiryns, Pylos and Mycenae), secondary ‗throne‘ rooms (found at Tiryns, Pylos and Mycenae), a bath room (found at Tiryns and Pylos), storage rooms and workshops (found at Pylos), a grand entrance stairway (found at Mycenae) and propylons (found at Tiryns and Pylos). The roughly scythed shaped ‗palace‘ at Gla enclosed within what might be conceived of as a walled city, is so

137 Wright (1995) 73. 138 Wright (1995) 74. 41

different from the others it has to be wondered if it served the same function as the ‗typical‘ Mycenaean ‗palace‘. Arguably Gla and the Menelaion do represent qualitative difference, and not mere local variation in taste.

However plausible or intuitive Wright‘s analysis, the crucial question for present purposes is whether it applies to Attica. Wright suggests that Athens probably also underwent the process he describes.139 However there are at present a number of insurmountable barriers to the confident adoption of that view.

(i) Wright himself, echoing Cherry, conceded that

―the individual trajectory of societal groups is neither predetermined nor predictable, and this means that our reading of the process of complex socio-political formations from the archaeological evidence will be variously opaque or, at best, translucent when viewed from the perspective of different emergent regional groups, since, probably only some of them will result in complex chiefdoms or states.‖ 140

(ii) There can be no certainty that even Pylos is properly described as a ―palace‖. Schmidt argues that at Pylos there was no monarch at all, but rather a ruling aristocracy.141

(iii) Processualism as a hierarchical paradigm is only one of a number of explanatory paradigms for Mycenaean remains, and paradigms such as ‗heterarchy‘, ‗corporate political organization‘ and ‗factional/elite competition‘ can offer better alternatives where processualism seems to be inapplicable.142 There is, for instance, no evidence of a Mycenaean palace in Corinthia and this may be explicable if the region is conceived of as a well-integrated heterarchical system: such a system ―that is stable within a local or regional landscape has no inevitable trajectory toward hierarchical complexity and may

139 Wright (1995) 72: ―the successful chief became paramount chief, or king, in those areas where the convergence of economic, political and ideological forces were creating central places, namely Mycenae, Thebes, Orchomenos, Athens, and Pylos, to name the most obvious.‖ Wright does not lay a foundation for the use of ―obvious‖ in relation to Athens. 140 Wright (1995) 66 and Cherry (1983). 141 Re. Schmidt see note 110 p. 35 above. An elite group as opposed to a monarch has been postulated for Dimini: Pantou (2010) 389. Note also Wiener (2011) 542: ―It is now being generally accepted that the old picture of an all- controlling palace should be rejected.‖ 142 cf. Pantou (2010) 384 and references. 42

be able to resist the centralizing tendencies of a well-connected palatial system imposed from outside.‖143 The same model is prima facie helpful in respect of the settlements in the Bay of Volos (Dimini, Kastro and Pefkakia) where again the evidence so far does not support a palace centre.144

(iv) Following from (iii) it is apparent that quite different political structures can be descriptive of polity complexes in quite close geographical proximity: Corinthia abuts the Argolid, and the Bay of Volos complex is not far distant from the Petra/Valestino complex(es) to its North West.

(v) In general, the idea that Mycenaean Greece was just a series of kingdoms ruled from major centres is increasingly challenged by a growing body of archaeological data, and there is no sound basis for assuming that Athens or Attica can be fitted into any one of what is a competing set of paradigms of Mycenaean political organization.

Consider in this regard that from the facts (a), by around 1400 late Bronze Age Attica was home to scattered settlements of equal wealth; (b), richly endowed tholos tombs have been found at Menidhi, Marathon and Thorikos; (c), by 1250 the Acropolis of Athens was heavily fortified; and (d), there was no other fortified Attic Bronze Age site, Camp concluded: ―It appears, in short, as though the scattered and equally wealthy settlements of 1400 had by 1250 become part of a single political unit with Athens and the Acropolis as its dominant center.‖145 The equality referred to by Camp invites consideration of heterarchy rather than hierarchy, and the issue of fortification may not be decisive in displacing a non-hierarchical paradigm. Thus, until its remains began to be excavated in 1939, the ‗Palace of Nestor‘ on the hill (now called ‗Epano Englianos‘) at Pylos was all but lost in terms of material evidence, and there is no evidence that the site was fortified to anything like the extent of the sites at Mycenae and Tiryns, or for that matter fortified at all.146 Yet this relatively small place is widely held to be

143 Pullen and Tartaron (2007) 148. 144 Pantou (2010). See map Galaty and Parkinson (2007) 160. 145 Camp (2001) 14-16 at 16. 146 Blegen and Rawson (2004) 40. Even in the Classical period ―no one knew exactly where Pylos had stood‖. 43

the locus classicus for the Mycenaean palace, whilst the vast walled complex at Gla has been described, rightly or wrongly, merely as ―likely a barracks or administrative outpost.‖147

In any event, clearly the archaeological evidence, as far as it goes, is not inconsistent with the proposition that there was a Mycenaean centre on the summit of the Acropolis by the 13th century, albeit up to a century later than the ‗palaces‘ at Mycenae, Tiryns and Thebes.148 Hence:

(i) By c.16th century BCE the Acropolis and its surrounds were settled to the degree that it sustained characteristic pottery styles (Minyan ware and Matt-Painted ware).149 And burial evidence suggests significant habitation on the slopes, especially the South Slope, of the Acropolis.150 There is a suggestion of possible contact by this time with Crete.151 But there is no evidence of a palace on the Acropolis by this time.152

(ii) By c. 15th century BCE the Acropolis inhabitants were making pottery known as the Marine Style,153 and there is some evidence, albeit very slight, for the importation of pottery from Crete.154

(iii) By c. 14th century BCE, residential spread extended beyond the slopes of the Acropolis, and the area that would become the Classical Agora was a substantial cemetery.155

147 Shelmerdine (2008) 115. 148 See Mountjoy (1995) 22-24 in relation to the date (she dates ‗the palace‘ closer to the dates of the other centres) and see in general Hurwitt (1999) 71-84 and references; Camp (2003) and references; and Lemos (2006) and references. 149 Hansen (1937) 554. 150 Immerwahr (1971) 51-54; Pelon (1976) 79-80. 151 Rutter and Zerner (1984) 75-82 reported the discovery of a Minoan vase in an Athenian grave of this period. 152 Yet there is possible evidence of an independent power by the 16th century at Kiapha Thiti on the coast south east of Athens: Maran (1992). As for the Acropolis, Iakovidis (1962) 69-70 and id. (1983) 75 reported evidence of the walls 0.40-0.80 high of a room to the north of the Erechtheion which he believed was only briefly used. Its clay floors preserved a few potsherds. 153 Mountjoy (1995) 16-17, 69-70; Dickinson (1977) 96. 154 Hood (1978) 147 and see Camp (1992) 27 in regard to a gold signet ring, c 400-1375, found in an Agora chamber tomb. 155 To this period belongs an elaborate ivory pyxis found in a chamber tomb in the north east slope of the Acropolis. See Immerwahr (1971) 166. 44

th (iv) By c. mid 13 century BCE there was a cluster of five terraces on the Acropolis, the largest fronting a substantial part of the west slope, and extending some 100 metres into the summit.

(v) By the beginning of the 12th century BCE a typical ‗Cyclopean‘ wall (significant remains of which are extant) around the summit of the Acropolis, and a substantial and elaborate fountain inside the north slope of the Acropolis, had been constructed.156

The only known physical remains consistent with the hypothesized Mycenaean centre atop the Acropolis are what appears to be a limestone column base (though it is not identified with certainty), and remnants of sandstone steps. Some argue that we also have a lintel from a Mycenaean royal tomb.157

(d) The Nature of the Athenian Wanax

Christos Tsountas, who was instrumental in the excavations both of Mycenae and Tiryns inferred from what he saw at those places that their political organization was monarchical,158 yet Tsountas‘ Mycenaean ‗monarch‘, if he existed (and did not rule over the whole of the Mycenaean world,159 or at least more than one Mycenaean centre), should not be imagined to be the ruler of anything more than what today would be regarded as a large country estate at most; and, in the Argolid, to be a ruler living cheek by jowl with his brother monarchs in what would seem to be an overabundance of ‗monarchs‘.160

Chadwick, like Palmer, believed the wanax was a priest-king:

156 In relation to the fountain see Broneer (1939) 317-433. The wall was nearly two centuries later than the walls at Mycenae and Tiryns; although roughly contemporaneous with the expansion (mid 13th century) at those sites. See Iakovidis (1983) 86-87. 157 Camp (1992)101-102. It has been hypothesized that the lintel is the alleged oath stone, found in front of the Royal Stoa in the course of the agora excavations. 158 Tsountas and Manatt (1897) 336. 159 See for an argument to that effect Kelder (2008). 160 cf. Marinatos (1951) 133 in relation to Mycenae and Tiryns: ―cities which were situated so near each other and . . . so magnificent that they could not have served as the capitals of two independent kingdoms. Tiryns was evidently an annex or a second seat of the kingdom, Mycenae being the first . . . ‖ By this reasoning Marinatos purported to explain the myth of the hostility of Eurystheus and Heraklēs. See also Palmer (1961) 165 and Thomas (1970). The reference in the Iliad at 2.8 to rule by Agamemnon over Argos and numerous islands seems anomalous, even within the terms of its own narrative. 45

―A monarchical system of government is proved both for Knossos and Pylos by references to the king (Fάναξ); the absence of any further qualification shows that the state knew one king only. The suggestion of Palmer . . . that he was a priest-king is likely enough on archaeological as well as on comparative grounds; but that his power was temporal as well as spiritual is guaranteed by the elaborate records of his civil service.‖161

Palmer‘s conception seems to be of a king whose stature was based on his lineage from a hero or a divinity.162 However, another conception of the wanax is of a war lord who became pre- eminent on the basis of demonstrated military prowess.163

To the extent that we are inclined to conceive of the wanax in Indo-European terms, specifically pursuant to the trifunctional model of Dumézil,164 we should be constrained by the fact that Dumézil expressly and specifically demurred from the formulation of general principles based on trifunctionality in relation to the characterization of kingship. 165

And we should also be constrained by uncertainty as to the etymologies of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο. It is surely significant that of the words ἄλαμ, βαζηιεύο, and ζθ῅πηξνλ, words which are at the centre of Homeric conceptions of kingship, ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο do not appear to be of Indo- European origin, and ζθ῅πηξνλ appears to be a word unique to Greek.166 Consider also Meillet, who concluded that neither ἄλαμ nor βαζηιεύο were Indo-European but borrowed from elsewhere,167 and Ruijgh in 1999: Fαλαθη- is ―sans doute préhellénique.‖168

(i) wanax/Fάλαμ

Two proposals for an oriental origin include those of Palaima and Bernal:

161 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 120. 162 Palmer (1963) 83-89 and 186-224. 163 See Thomas (1976). 164 Dumézil (1958). And see Mallory (1989) 130-135. 165 Dumézil (1958) 32-33. cf. Palaima (1996) 121-122. Consider Ruijgh(1957) 112-113: ―. . . chez le roi-prêtre des peuples primitifs, la protection et la domination ne sont que deux aspects de la même puissance magique, grâce à laquelle tout le pays prospère; par conséquent, il n‘est guère possible de dissocier ces deux aspects de Fάναξ.‖ 166 In relation to ζθ῅πηξνλ see Palaima (1996) 135-138. 167 Meillet (1932) 588: ―L‘emprunt de Fάναξ et de Βασιλεύρ traduit linguistiquement le prestige de la civilisation égéenne qu'ont rencontrée les troupes d'Achéens descendues du Nord et qui ont eu devant eux des choses toutes nouvelles, admirables et surprenantes.‖ 168 Ruijgh (1999) 521. This was a view he had held for a long time: see Ruijgh (1967) 385, note 166. 46

Palaima: Palaima saw an analogy with Hittite use, at a time contemporaneous with Mycenaean society, of the stems hassu- and hassussara, ‗king‘ and ‗queen‘ respectively, and hassa- ‗progeny‘ (vel sim.). He acknowledges that there is no certain etymological connection between hassu- and hassa- but on the assumption that there is he argues by analogy that F άλαμ is connected with ‗birth‘ and ‗generation‘169

Bernal: Bernal gives ‗nḫ; as the etymology of ἄλαμ. Thus:

―The Egyptian etymology I propose is from ‗nḫ dt ‗may he live forever.‘ This formula was normally placed under the names of living pharaohs. It was even treated as an independent noun phrase as in the common conclusion to dedicatory irr.f‗nḫ(w)dt ‗may he make; he lives eternally.‖170

Despite the weight of opinion against an Indo-European origin for wanax and the plausibility (or at least arguability) of oriental origins, attempts have been made to find an Indo-European origin. Thus, Georgiev, Hajnal and Chantraine:

Georgiev: In 1984 Vladimir Georgiev proposed that the word was derived from a proto Indo-European compound noun which had to do with leadership in battle.171 Obviously that derivation is a radical departure from the generally agreed semantic range of the word.

Hajnal: In a more recent attempt Hajnal172 hypothesized that lāwāgetās and wanax are conceptually connected; a word lāwāks (unattested) having existed as a structural parallel to wanaks. In the result, according to Hajnal, (i) lāwāgetās (deriving from a hypothetical lah2uo- h2g-t), has the meaning ―Person, die waffenfähige Bevölkerung leitet‖ (a person who directs the people capable of bearing arms), and (ii) wanaks (deriving from a hypothetical un-h2ág-t), has the meaning, ―Person, die Gewinn mit sich führt, erzielt‖ (a person who brings profit or gain

169 Palaima (2006) 57. There is a form of wanax, ‗wanaktei‘, found in Phrygia giving rise to speculation that wanax has a Phrygian origin. This is rejected by Lejeune (1969) 192 and by Diakonoff and Neroznak (1985) 140. Note also the rejection by Chantraine (1968) s.v. βαζηιεύο, of a litotic Indo-European etymology meaning ‗vital‘ (vel. sim.) constructed by Puhvel (1956). 170 Bernal (2006) 259-260 and references. Bernal acknowledges and addresses throughout the strident criticisms of a significant Egyptian etymology for Greek. 171 Georgiev (1984) 125-127: connecting wanax with ‗Volksführer‘ and ‗Kriegerfürer‘. 172 Hajnal (1998) 60-69. 47

with him). A brief analysis of this etymology illustrates the complexity involved in attempts at an etymological construction for wanax.

The Hajnal etymology

— fits with the recent anthropologically based theories of transition from chieftain to Mycenaean king in which the king becomes the possessor and controller of wealth and its symbols;

— fits with the evidence, such as it is, in Homer of a tradition in which the kingdom of the good wanax is the beneficiary divine providence;173 and,

— according to Palaima, makes sense of compounds such as ἀστς-άλαμ (which Palaima translates as ―he who secures profit for the town‖ and Ηθη-άλαζζα (which Palaima translates as ―she who secures profit by force‖).174

Two problems with the etymology are that

— the hypothetical lāwāks as the military commander does not occur in the epic poetry. If the explanation for that is to be that its final form, lāwāgetās, would have posed metrical problems (its metrical form is - - ̌ - ) the transition lāwāks to lāwāgetās will have to have occurred before the oral composition of the poems; and,

— the adoption of the suffix –etas would not be easy to explain if it is supposed to have happened after the stem forms had all become lāwāk-, that is, after the word had developed from a free standing noun form in the ‗nominative‘ only. That prospect tends to give rise to thoughts of lexical usage being the subject of fiat, and surely, whatever other claims are made for Mycenaean society, it has not been demonstrated to be so sophisticated.175

Chantraine: Arguing ex Homero, Chantraine sought to find the etymology of wanax in Homer‘s use of ἄλαμ in the epithet ἄλαμ ὰλδξ῵λ, and the idea of the king as πνηκὴλ ια῵λ (a shepherd of the people). The idea of ἄλαμ as protector is discussed in Chapter Two below in

173 Homer, Odyssey, 19.109-25, and Hesiod, Theogony, 225-247. See further below pp. 80-81. 174 Palaima (2006) 56. 175 Hajnal‘s etymology is not without supporters, but consider Schmidt (2006) 443, note 17: ―I have some doubts about Hajnal‘s derivation constructing an Indo-European ideology of the third millennium BC, allegedly still valid in Mycenaean Greek in the second millennium as well as in Phrygia in the sixth century BC.‖ 48

relation to Homer; it suffices here to foreshadow the view expressed there that we should not be trying to find the etymology of wanax/Fάλαμ or gwasileus/βαζηιεύο in Homer.

(ii) gwasileus/βαζηιεύο

Consider Frisk in relation to βαζηιεύο:

―Die bis in die neueste Zeit . . . wiederholten Bemühungen, basileus aus dern Indog. [Indogermanischen] Herzuleiten, sind erfolglos geblieben. Auch die Versuche, an kleinasiatische und andere sprachlichen Elemente anzuknüpfen . . . kommen über allgemeine Vermutungen nicht hinaus. So muβ basileus immer noch als ein wenigstens in Einzelheiten unklares Fremdwort betrachtet werden.‖176

And in 1968, Chantraine argued:

―Il est vain de chercher une étymologie à basileus. Le mot semblerait emprunté comme tyrannos et anax. Mais koiranos peut avoir une étymologie indo- européenne. Et le mycénien atteste une labio-vélaure initiale, qui peut faire penser à une origine i.–e.‖177

Meillet observed that the Latin rex can give an Indo-European origin for the word ‗king‘ but ‗king‘ is not in the Greek lexicon.178

Consider also Benveniste:

―basileus is derived by means of the suffix –eús, which is preceded by the morpheme –il-, this being an element characteristic of the personal names of Asia Minor . . . This is all that can be said. As for the root element bas-, none of the numerous hypotheses recorded in the etymological dictionaries can even be discussed today.‖179

176 Frisk (1960) Volume 1, s.v. basileus. 177 Chantraine (1968) s.v. βαζηιεύο. 178 Meillet (1932) 587. 179 Benveniste (1973) 318. However, consider in relation to –eús, Perpillou (1973) esp. 15 and 29-33 arguing for a non Indo-European pre-Greek origin. 49

Not deterred, Bernal took his cue for βαζηιεύο from the -εύο suffix. In respect of scholars who see that suffix as an innovation within Greek, Bernal argues:

―Such an innovation can easily be explained if it is seen as a loan from the suffix -w found on Egyptian participles and ‗relative forms,‘ which when standing as nouns mean ‗the one‘ or ‗ones who‘.‖180

Bernal goes on to propose Egyptian p3 sr ―the official‖ as the etymological origin of βαζηιεύο.181

And as with Fάλαμ, attempts have been made to construct an indo-European origin for βαζηιεύο. However, these are generally unconvincing and at least have not won general acceptance. 182

(e) The Problem with Generalizing from Linear B

Subscribing to the idea of an Athenian wanax must allow for the fact that the structure and ideological foundations of Mycenaean society have been deduced from analyses of the Linear B records and as mentioned above those records cannot be assumed to be a prototype in every particular for all Mycenaean centres.183 The Linear B record is predominantly about Knossos and Pylos and then only in respect of a discrete time period.184 It would not be reasonable to imagine that what applied in these centres applied uniformly and in every particular, and at all relevant times, to all the others, and that there would not have been substantial variations absolutely and at different times between the centres in their social structures and even in their ideological foundations, or at least in the forms of the cultural expression of those foundations. Hence, an Athenian wanax society might not have been readily recognizable in, for example, a Pylian or a Theban wanax society, except in a very general sense. No one can even say for certain that in Mycenaean societies a wanax was universally and always known by that title.

180 Bernal (2006) 157. 181 Bernal (2006) 220. He notes loc. cit., that the etymology was first proposed by the Romanian scholar Dr. Constantin Daniel in 1971. In addressing criticisms see in particular at 220-223 Bernal‘s attention to the criticisms of Jasanoff and Nussbaum in relation to βαζηιεύο. 182 See, for example, Heubeck (1958): from the hypothetical gwem- ‗to go/ come‘, and later ‗to be born‘; Hooker (1976) 143 Appendix s.v. βαζηιεύο and references; and see in general Aura Jorro (1993) Volume II, s.v. qa-si-re-u. 183 pp. 40-42. 184 pp. 32-33 above. 50

Just as it is the case with their ‗castles‘, the wanaktes should not be conceived of as all cast from the same mould, and certainly not in one batch.

C Athenian ‗Wanaktes‘ Remembered?

The 4th, 5th, and 6th kings, or archons for life (ἄξρνληεο δηὰ βίνπ) in the canonical Athenian king list are Erichthonios, Pandion and Erechtheus . The 3rd king in the list is Amphiktyōn. If the myth of Erichthonios is correctly reported by Apollodorus it could only account for Erichthonios in the king list by a story of usurpation, since Erichthonios was not an offspring of Amphiktyōn. That is, the story of usurpation suggests the Athenians believed their ancestral kings were, in general, hereditary monarchs. That would of course make Erichthonios the grandfather of Erichtheōs, yet this does not seem consistent with the fact that of the things the Athenians called themselves one was ‗Erechtheidai‘185 whilst there is no record of the Athenians having called themselves ‗Erichthoniadai‘. Indeed, Homer leaves Erichthonios out of the picture altogether. For him it was Erechtheus not Erichthonios who was nurtured by Athena and later venerated in Athens.186 On the other hand, later literary and artistic representations give the prior position to Erichthonios.187

In any event, if what is attributed to Solon can be relied on, by the 6th century Athena had ‗taken possession‘ of Athens.188 However, the first gods worshipped by the people of the Acropolis may have been Zeus, Pandrossos and Kourotrophos.189 Perhaps that was the case during the rule of Aktaios,190 the father-in-law of Kekrops, the mythical first king of Athens. Kekrops, being parentless, was of the earth itself (αὐηόρζνλνο) and he was double natured (δηθπήο), half man, half snake. Kekrops would be remembered by the Athenians for his having brought civilization to their ancestors, the people of the Acropolis, who in honour of Kekrops became known as Kekropidai.191 Hence, Kekrops inter alia proclaimed the primacy of Zeus,

185 Mikalson (1976) 141, note 1. Compare Herodotus 8.44. According to Hurwitt (1999) 33, note 114, when the Athenians thought of Erechtheus they were Erechtheidai. 186 Iliad 2.546-51 187 Reed (1995); Gantz (1993) 239-242; Parker (1986); Euripides, Ion 267-270. 188 Lines 1-4 of fragment in Demosthenes 19.255. 189 cf. Simon (1983) 105-106. 190 In regard to testimony concerning Orgygos and Aktaios, see the discussion in Harding (2008) 18-20. 191 See Herodotus, 8.44. Other possible names: ‗Kekropidai‘: Hurwitt (1999) 8; ‗Kekropia‘, ‗Kranaa‘ after the second mythical king ‗Kranaos‘: Korres (1994) 35-51. 51

instituted just laws, and established Kekropia, a polity of 12 demes from which it may be inferred that by the time of his reign the people of the Acropolis had increased in numbers, and occupied a larger stretch of land than that offered by the Acropolis itself.

Homer mentions Athens in five contexts.192 Only two of the references offer geographical information: in Odyssey 7.80 Athena, after crossing the barren sea reaches Marathon ―and the wide streets of Athens, and enters the sturdy abode of Erectheus‖. In Odyssey 11.320 Thēseus is said to have borne the beautiful Ariadnē, daughter of the maleficent Minos, from ―Crete to the hill of Sacred Athens.‖

Homer may or may not have been referring to the historical Athens, but the possibility that he was cannot be excluded. What was the source of the name itself? There is a long tradition that Athēnai was named after the goddess. Euripides has Athena herself making this claim193 and Apollodorus asserts that ―Athena thus called the city after herself.‖194 Hyginus has it that Minerva founded Athens ―in her own name . . .‖195 Hurwitt argues that it was the reverse: Athena got her name from what the people of the Acropolis then, in his view, probably called the Acropolis: Athēna or the plural, Athenai.196 However, Athena figures prominently in Homer and Athens barely at all, and even then cryptically. If Athens‘ place in Homer is due to a 6th century recension, perhaps this is reflected in the textual awkwardness seen in, for example, Odyssey 11.320 above, which has it that Ἀζήλε visits Ἀζήλελ.197 However, it is not impossible that an incipient form of Athena was adopted by an Athenian yZn (Fάναξ) naming the Acropolis after her, and that it would be the 9th/8th century Kekropidai who would in effect adopt her again, after she had become a panhellenic phenomenon.198 The Homeric Athena would have developed from her Mycenaean form, if indeed she was the qaZldCp (a-ta-na-po- ti-ni-ja) mentioned in the clay tablet found at Knossos, or in some other as yet undiscovered

192 Iliad: 2.545; Odyssey: 3.275, 3.305, 7.80, 11.320. 193 Euripides, Ion, 1555. 194 Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, 3.14.1. 195 Hyginus, Fabulae, 164. See Burkert (1985) 179; Simon (1983) 106; Simon (1980) 179; Guthrie (1955) 107. 196 Hurwitt (1999) 8, and generally 12-15. 197 See Slatkin (2011), Finkelberg (2011) and Nagy (2011). 198 In the National Archaeological Museum in Athens there are two exhibits that allow for speculation that the Mycenaean goddess (the precursor of Athena?) is portrayed on them: a piece of fresco from the palace of Minos at Knossos, and a gold signet-ring based on a Minoan model from Mycenae. 52

Mycenaean form.199 The problem with a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja is that ldCp (po-ti-ni-ja, potnia), translated as ‗lady‘ or ‗mistress‘ is found elsewhere in Linear B, but it is usually linked to toponyms, so giving a lady, or mistress, of a place. Thus, the a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja may refer to a ‗lady of Atana‘ and the ‗lady‘ may or may not be Athena, and ‗Atana‘ may or may not be Athens. The odds that Atana would not have been a reference to Athens are of course increased by the fact that the tablet was found on Crete, and the fact that the conventional date for the tablet is 1375 BCE, a date in respect of which there is nothing to suggest that Athens was a place of any significance at all. And yet potnia Athēnaia and potni‘Athana are both found a half a millennium later in Homer200 (and in Hesiod as πόηληαλ only)201 and on inscriptions from the Acropolis.202

When did the Kekropidai establish Athena as their patron deity, and start to call themselves ‗Athenians‘? According to Herodotus they started to call themselves Athēnaioi during the reign of Erechtheus as King of Athens.203 As with King Kekrops the Athenians would also remember King Erechtheus. Kekrops gave them civilization; Erechtheus gave them a divine connection to Athens. It was the autochthonous Erechtheus , the ‗son‘ of the virgin goddess Athena and god Hephaistos, from whom they had sprung.204

Tradition contemplates two dynasties of ἄξρνληεο δηὰ βίνπ: the Erechtheid (or Kekropidai), and the Melanthid (or Kodridai). The Erechtheid dynasty is the bequest of the ancient chronographers beginning with the author of the Parian Marble (c. 3rd century BCE) down to Eusebius/Kastor (c. 3rd/4th century CE): the dynasty is as follows according to the Parian Marble, save for the last three who are taken from the list given by Eusebius205 (the years in

199 That development may even be recorded in the facts that on a fresco from the cult centre at Mycenae a helmeted goddess is shown holding a griffin, and Pheidias‘ chryselephantine statue of Athena in the Parthenon, according to Pausanias 1.24.5, had reclining griffins set on each side of her helmet. cf. Hurwitt (1999) 14-15. For the nature of the Mycenaean goddess as portrayed in Linear B see Demargne and Cassimatis (1984) s.v. Athena, 955-1044, at 1016, where she is described in terms making her recognizable in the Athena of classical Athens. 200 E.g. Iliad 6.305, ‗πόηλη‘ Ἀζελαίε‘. The list of 49 references to Potnia in Homer and 6 references in Hesiod are detailed in Thomas and Wedde (2001) 4. See further on potnia: Kopaka (2001). 201 E.g. Theogony 926. 202 IG I3 607: inscriptions on two bases ‗Glaukias‘, c. 530-520 and ‗Smikros‘, c. 500-480. Interestingly, a 7th century temple built on the site of the palace of Mycenae is thought to be a dedication to Athena: Hurwitt (1999) 14-15. 203 Herodotus 8.44.1-2. Pausanias 1.2.6 says that Attica was named after Ἀηζίο a daughter of Κξαλαόο. 204 The story is told by Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, 3.14.6. 205 Schoene (1875) 186-187. In relation to Troy the Parian Marble gives 1209/1208 and Kastor, 1184/1183. 53

brackets are as asserted, when stated, in the Parian Marble206): Kekrops I (1582/1); Kranaos (1532/1); Amphiktyōn (1522/1); Erichthonios (1511/0); Pandiōn I (1506/5); Erechtheus (1410/09); Kekrops II (1347-1307); Pandiōn II; Aigeus (1295/4); Thēseus (1259/8); Menestheus (1218/7); Dēmophōn (1208/7); Oxyntēs; Apheidas; Thymoitēs.

Thymoitēs is said to have abdicated in face of a challenge to single combat by Xanthios of Boeotia whereupon Melanthos of Pylos took his place.207 Melanthos defeated Xanthios and thus we have the Melanthid dynasty. The dynasty is as follows according to Eusebius/Kastor208 (the numbers in brackets are the years of reign asserted by Eusebius): Melanthos (37); Kodros (21); Medōn (20); Akastos (36); Arkippos (19); Thersippos (41); Phorbas (30); Megaklēs (30); Diognētos (28); Phereklēs (19); Ariphrōn (20); Thespieus (27); Agamēstōr (17); Aiskhylos (23); Alkmaiōn (2).

According to Eusebius, from Medōn the rulers were called archons: down to Alkmaiōn they were ἄξρνληεο δηὰ βίνπ and after Alkmaiōn they were decennial, ἄρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο, until they became annual. He lists seven archons who had ten year terms: Kharops; Aisimidēs; Kleidikos; Hippomenēs; Leocratēs; Apsandros; Eryxias.209

As indicated, the above listing is not systematic by source. Attempts have been made at a systematic listing (even proposing years of reign) from combining the available sources, but this is not the place to deal with the complexities in detail, in particular because the matter requires a high level of speculation, not least in regard to the separation of fact (if any) from myth.210

If the Athenians believed the stories it is surprising that their amour propre, having regard to the autochthony they pridefully claimed for themselves, did not prevent them from accepting that they were saved from the Boiotians by the Pylian Melanthos, and then from the Dorians by

206 Jacoby‘s calculations based on Kastor (of Rhodes) gives different years, see 4FGrH250. 207 Other historical sources relating to this dynasty include: Pollux, Onomasticon 10.128 from Pherekydēs 3FGrH154; Herodotus 5.65.3; Pausanias 2.18.7-9; Strabo 9.1.7; Tzetzes, Chiliades, 1.180-182. 208 Eusebius asserted that his source was Kastor: Schoene (1875) 181. 209 Schoene (1875) 189. There are variant versions of Eusebius, the original Greek version having been lost. See Samuel (1972) 195ff for a juxtaposing of variant dates of the ἄξρνληεο δηὰ βίνπ and ἄρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο. 210 See Jacoby (1902) and generally Toepffer (1889/2010) 225-243; Wilamowitz (1893) 126-144 and id. (1898); De Sanctis (1898) 73-125; Ledl (1914) 105-272; Hignett (1952) 38-46; Sarkady (1967) 23-34; Carlier (1984) 359- 372; Morris (2003); Harding (2008) 13-85. 54

Melanthos‘ son Kodros.211 Note in this regard Pausanias in relation to yet another stranger, Thēseus.212

Another element in the tradition is that the succession of Medōn was at the expense of his brother Nēleus who in consequence left Athens to found cities in Ionia.213

The Parian Marble places Aiskhylos at least 30 years before Kharops, thus leaving a substantial gap between the ἄξρνληεο δηὰ βίνπ and the ἄρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο. This raises for consideration the possibility that the original list of ἄρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο had not seven but ten names (the additional three at ten years each making up for the 30 year lacuna214) and that for some reason a later chronographer in some redaction. According to Drews: ―It was probably Eratosthenes, needing to fit the Athenian rulers into his own panhellenic chronology.‖215 Carlier also points to Eratosthenes but with more conjecture:

―Il est peu probable qu'Eratosthène ait supprimé de la liste des noms déjà consacrés par la tradition atthidographique. En revanche, il est possible qu'il ait transformé en δεθαεηεῖο les derniers rois ou archontes à vie de la famille des Médontides, réduit de trente ans un règne ou diminué légèrement la durée de plusieurs.‖216

As for the legitimacy in general of the lists, the argument against legitimacy that the lists contain ―Alkmaeonid and Philaid names such as Alkmaeon, Megacles, and Agamestor [and] Ariphron (the name of Pericles‘ grandfather)‖217 is not especially convincing to the degree that it is based merely on argument from homonymity?218 Nor is it an especially convincing argument that the list is invalid because in respect of the names on it after Kodros there are ―no

211 See Pausanias 1.19.5; Herodotus 5.76 and Lycurgus 1.84-87. 212 Pausanias 1.3.3, but see p. 196-197 below. 213 Pausanias 7.2.1; Aelian 8.5. Note that Shapiro (1989) 102 note 11, postulates a 5th century BCE invention of Kodros consistent with an hypothesis going back at least to Toepffer (1889/2010) that the relationship between Médontides and Neleids of Ionia and Athens were inventions to justify Athenian imperialism of the 5th century. Carlier rejects the hypothesis: Carlier (1984) 361and references. 214 But perhaps Alkmaiōn, if he existed, ruled not for just 2 but for 32 years . 215 Drews (1983) 90-91. 216 Carlier (1984) 364. 217 Drews (1983) 91. Jacoby saw the frequency of these names as proof that the list was invented by Hellanicos and borrowing the names of ―old Athenian nobility‖: Jacoby (1949) 127. See also Carlier (1984) 364 and references. 218 In regard to homonymity and its limitations see discussion and examples in Hansen (1992) and Dillon (2006). 55

historical accounts, . . . no anecdotes, not even aetiology.‖219 Some of the most venerated of the ancients are little more than just a name but are not for that necessarily fictional.

However, it is the case that there is no real corroboration of Eusebius in relation to the ἄξρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο. There are some very brief, extremely weak corroborative references, weaker for the fact that they are chronographic in the case of the first three to four of the names in the lists: specifically Eryxias,220 Aisimidēs,221 Kharops,222 and Hippomenēs.223 Of the ἄξρνληεο δηὰ βίνπ only Aiskhylos, apart from the mythic early kings, is mentioned outside of Eusebius and the Parian Marble.224

The Athenians may have had a ‗memory‘ of Kodros, but even the story of him, as Jacoby points out, ―may originally have been a simple aition which, being connected with the Peloponnesian war, gave the answer to the question why Athens was not ruled by kings like Sparta.‖225 As for the story of Kodros having sacrificed himself to save Athens, Carlier draws an analogy with the self-sacrifice of Leōnidas and submits:

―Il est probable que les Médontides se sont donné Codros comme ancêtre à l'époque où ils régnaient encore et il n'est pas invraisemblable qu'ils aient alors aussi forgé ou remodelé l‘histoire de son dévouement à des fins de propagande.‖226

In summary, however, it may be stated that for a reasonable degree of reliability of cultural traditions as being historically factual two conditions need to be satisfied: that there be a detailed compatibility between the tradition and any material remains; and that a mechanism can be pointed to by which a memory of the tradition might have been preserved.227 Neither

219 Drews (1983) 91. 220 Velleius Paterculus, Historiae Romanae, 1.8. 221 Pausanias, 4.5.10. 222 Dionysius, The Roman Antiquities, 1.71.5 and 75.3 223 Aeschines, Timarch, 182 assuming the Hippomenēs of the list is one and the same with the Hippomenēs of the story to which Aeschines was alluding. See also Ath. Pol. fragment: ἖θ η῵λ Ἡξαθιείδνπ πεξὶ Πνιηηεη῵λ. Note Jacoby (1949) 145 in relation to the Hippomenēs story: ―Equally some Atthids used the story of Kodros . . . for explaining the abolition of the royalty and transition to archonship.‖ 224 For Aiskhylos see Pausanias 4.5.10. 225 Jacoby (1954) Volume 3b (supplement) text, 48. 226 Carlier (1984) 361. 227 cf. Osborne (2009) 49. 56

condition is satisfied for the proposition that the Athenian king lists preserve a memory of Athenian ‗wanaktes‘, or even a memory of an Athenian Bronze age monarchy of any sort.

D The Role of the Wanax With Respect to Ritual

However, the issue of a connection between a Mycenaean Athens and the Athenian βαζηιεύο can be approached from another perspective. It is submitted here proleptically (a full review of what can reliably said about the Athenian βαζηιεύο is presented in later chapters) that we cannot say that there is anything at all about the Athenian βαζηιεύο that is recognizable in what we think we know or can reasonably surmise in regard to an Athenian wanax. Furthermore, a problem with the idea that the Athenian βαζηιεύο was ―the successor of the Bronze Age kings‖,228 founded as it is on the orthodox view of the Athenian βαζηιεύο as a ‗religious‘ figure, in particular that the Athenian βαζηιεύο was associated with an annual ‗sacred‘ marriage ritual, is that it must assign a primary ‗religious‘ role to the wanax.229

Pylos tablet Tn 316 is of considerable significance in relation to Mycenaean ‗religion‘ but Palaima‘s general caution should be noted:

―When we try to interpret Pylos tablet Tn 316, we are faced with all the normal problems that we have in interpreting evidence (iconographical, archaeological, textual, epigraphical) for ancient religion.‖230

Tn 316 aside, in 1955 a cache of storage jars was found at Pylos bearing an ideogram taken to be a reference to olive oil. Linear B tablets in two batches were found in association with this discovery. They have become known as ‗the Olive Oil tablets‘ (technically, ‗the Pylos Fr Series‘) and have been of major significance in the formation of ideas expressed under the heading ‗Mycenaean religion‘.231

On one of the tablets, Fr 343 there is an entry, Mmf>s<],232 which has been deciphered as ιερεζηξσηεξίσλ (cf. the phrase ιέρνο ζηνξέζαη).233 Palmer took ιερεζηξσηεξίσλ to be the

228 Simon (1983) 106. 229 See for example below p. 108-109 in relation to the account of the ancestral βαζηιεύο given in Demosthenes 59.74. 230 Palaima (1999) 437. 231 The Olive Oil tablets were published by Bennett (1955). 232 re-ke-to-ro-te-ri-jo. A variant, re-ke-e-to-ro-te-ri-jo, occurs on Fr 1217. 57

genitive plural referring to a festival ‗the spreading of the couch‘ which he believed was a reference to a hieros gamos.234 Palmer referred to what he said was

―widespread evidence from the Orient that such a festival formed the culmination of the Spring Festival; this was the Sacred Marriage between the Mother Goddess and her risen Son, the rite which symbolizes and promotes the renewed fertility of the earth.‖235

The idea that we should think that Mycenaeans would have practised rites of a nature found in the Near East was not new with Palmer. There had been substantial preceding scholarship, which the Olive Oil tablets tend to confirm (assuming they have been correctly interpreted), that placed the Mycenaean Greeks in a broader cultural context of the Near East, and show the later Greeks as having diverged, even to the point of not actually understanding the true nature of the gods that they had inherited.236 The fact that, as discussed below, theories of an oriental etymology for the crucial words wanax/Fάλαμ and gwasileus/βαζηιεύο continue to be vigorously pressed is of particular interest in the present context.

The Olive Oil tablets do not indicate who the participants were. However, in the near eastern tradition of the spring festival, celebrating the renewal of nature, the marriage was between the mother–goddess and the liberated god.237

There is good evidence for the political significance of the ritual. For example, in the Mesopotamian Hymn to Ishtar, where the Hymn refers to the union of the goddess Ishtar and King Idin-Dagan of Isin, called in the Hymn ‗Tammuz‘, and also Ama-ushumgal-ana (‗Great Ruler of Heaven‘), there is an overt conflation of the king with the divine order. In effect, in the

233 ζηνξέζαη is the infinitive of ζηνξέλλπκη: ‗spread‘, ‗stretch‘. 234 The transliterated texts, including Fr 343 and 1213 and Fr 1217, are set out and interpreted in Palmer (1963) 240-245. For Palmer‘s interpretation of re-ke-(e)-to-ro-te-ri-jo see Palmer (1960) 198-199 and note 3. Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 579 expresses reservation suggesting that it refers to a divine feast. 235 Palmer (1961) 125. See, for example, Marshall (1989) 71on the mythical basis of Baalism. 236 See for example Marinatos (1951) 129: ―It is clear that in Homer there is not a shadow of insult or of any adverse implication when it is clearly stated that the father of a given hero is not the person assumed by the people, but Zeus or some other god. The Greeks of later times did not understand completely what was involved.‖ See in general Page (1959), and for a discussion as to whether the Mycenaean gods were theriomorphic see Rousioti (2001) noting, incidentally, differences between Mycenae and Thebes. 237 Frankfort (1948/1978) 331: Note however the warning against generalization in relation to ancient near eastern cultural practices: Frankfort (1948/1978) 405 note 1. Contrast Smith (1958) 49-54, 68 and 71. 58

Hymn the king of Isin plays god to the goddess.238 In Egypt, where the pharaoh seemed at all times in his life to hover betwixt two worlds, being neither merely human nor fully a god, the sacred marriage was between the goddess, and the pharaoh playing a mortal king. Thus, contrasting Mesopotamia and Egypt:

―In Mesopotamia a king was exalted beyond human comprehension; in Egypt a king who was never human realized the ineffable mystery of his own rebirth as Kamutef, ‗Bull of His Mother‘.‖239

The oriental traditions are not identical, but they share a number of common elements or themes.240 Thus, the bridegroom is a king: a human king unites with a goddess, or a god-king unites with a female mortal. In both cases the union validates the kingship, and in the first case it constitutes a divination of the king. The female in both cases initiates the union, and the union secures the prosperity of the kingdom. In short, the ritual is about monarchy in a context of a theological narrative justifying the political power of the monarch.241

The traditions were also associated with esotericism so that the ritual and its associated traditions may have been subject to a degree of secrecy.242 This aspect resonates with what is known of the Athenian ritual involving the wife of the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο and Dionysos, but it is far from enough to clinch a connection of the annual Athenian ritual with a Mycenaean one.

Furthermore, if such a practice existed in Mycenaean monarchy, seen within the broad context of Near Eastern monarchic cultures, we should assume that Mycenaean monarchy had a theological foundation. But there is no extant theological narrative. Nevertheless, Palmer

238 cf. Frankfort (1948/1978) 296. 239 Frankfort (1948/1978) 296. 240 See Lapinkivi (2004) especially 17-18. This is a conclusion of Lapinkivi‘s comparative analysis of the sacred marriage rite in a variety of cultures over a substantial geographical and temporal range. Scholars dealing solely with the Sumerian Dumazi-Inanna love song cycle are able to validly argue a variety of explanations including that of fertility ritual; a ceremony of coronation; justification of kingship/deification of the king; and, production of an heir to the throne. See Lapinkivi (2004) 1-13. 241 cf. Smith (1958) 71: ―What can legitimately be regarded as established is that the marriage rite was a state institution, that kings in practice could not, during some periods, neglect it, and that it belonged to a pattern, the sequence of festivals throughout the year.‖ 242 See Lapinkivi (2004) 19-20 and references. 59

speculated that the wanax might have been a ―sacral king‖243 and Palaima has the wanax intermediating on behalf of his people with the divinities potnia and Poseidon.244

But designations such as ‗sacral king‘, ‗sacred kingship‘ and ‗divine kingship‘ are not sufficient in themselves to make a crucial distinction between the king who qualifies for kingship by priesthood, and the king whose priesthood is merely a privilege of his monarchy. This distinction is illustrated in the following introduction by Maier to a discussion of alleged priest-kings in Cyprus:

―In divine kingship—the fundamental concept of the Egyptian monarchy—the rulers are not mortals, but gods. Divine kingship is not always easy to distinguish, however, from two other forms of rule: kingship ordained by gods (as represented by the Assyrian king Shamsi-Adad I styling himself: ‗the appointee of Enlil‘), and royal rule by consent of the gods (as typified by Assurbanipal declaring: ‗Assur and Sin have pronounced my name for rulership since time immemorial‘). Finally in sacral kingship a secular ruler also fulfils priestly functions, it being considered one of his duties to maintain harmonious relations between human society and the supernatural powers.‖245

It may be objected that the use of the words ‗divine‘ and ‗sacral‘ as distinguishing designations is confusing, and it cannot be contended, as seems to be implied, that that it was not also one of the pharaoh‘s duties ―to maintain harmonious relations between human society and the supernatural powers.‖ But the crucial distinction is clear: the pharaoh‘s kingship was a function of his priesthood; the priesthood of Maier‘s ―secular ruler‖ is merely a privilege of his kingship, not a pre-requisite for it.

This distinction is discussed in the next chapter. It is a distinction that was certainly recognized by Plato and possibly also by Aristotle, yet it is not made clear in relation to what modern orthodoxy asserts was the monarchic origin of the Athenian βαζηιεύο.

243 Palmer (1963) 83-84 and 86. It is not clear what Palmer meant by the phrase. 244 Palaima (1996) 134. 245 Maier (1989) 377. 60

E Conclusion to this Chapter

We cannot identify in the extant record of Mycenaean Greece an origin for the Athenian office of βαζηιεύο. We are certainly not able to say that the Athenian βαζηιεύο was ―the successor of the Bronze Age kings‖. Nor is there good reason to think that to classical Athenians Athena seemed to represent ―an avatar of the Mycenaean palace goddess, the protector of royalty in the second millennium.‖246 We do not know that there were Athenian Bronze Age kings or that if there were, we do not know their nature, in particular with respect to ritual. And there is no good reason to think the Athenians were better informed that we.

246 Pace De Polignac (1995) 84, assuming that this is what De Polignac meant to say. For characterization of the Athenian βαζηιεύο as successor to the Bronze Age kings see references to Simon at p.273 below. 61

CHAPTER TWO

Athens‘ Ancestral Bαζηι῅εο

CONTENTS

A Semantics 62 (a) ‗King‘ and ‗Monarchy‘ 62 (i) The Need for Precise Definitions 62 (ii) Political Power 65 (iii) Theocratic Monarchy 66 (iv) Monarchy by Primi Inter Pares 68 (b) ‗ἄλαμ‘ and ‗βαζηιεύο‘ 69 B The Nature of Post-Mycenaean Athenian Monarchy 76 (a) An End-Mycenaean Starting Point to Dark Age Athens 76 (b) Hesiodic Monarchy 79 (c) Homeric Monarchy 80 (i) Menestheus 80 (ii) A Divine Odysseus? 80 (iii) Feudal Monarchy—Why the Comparison Fails 81 (iv) The Godless βαζηι῅εο 82 (d) Monarchy in other Archaic Sources 84 C Ancestral Athenian Monarchy 84 (a) Classical Greek Theorizing 84 (b) The Ath. Pol.: The Ancestral Monarchy 88 (c) Athenian Monarchy Partitioned 92 (d) A Vestigial Priest King 94 D Conclusion to this Chapter 97

CHAPTER TWO

Athens‘ Ancestral βαζηι῅εο

A Semantics

(a) ‗King‘ and ‗Monarchy‘

(i) The Need for Precise Definitions

Drews criticized a University of Vienna dissertation of 1970 for its definition of βαζηιεύο as ―Herrscher über ein bestimmtes Territorium‖. His criticism was that: ―Such a definition produces a plethora of kings.‖247 However, that misses the point. The real issue is whether or not so defining βαζηιεύο reflects correct understanding.

In the debate about whether or not there were ‗kings‘ in ancient Greece the argument has been largely futile because, in general, there has not been a rigorous definition of terms.248

For example, Robert Drews in effect, though not expressly, defined ‗king‘ as ‗a hereditary male monarch‘ in the sense of an English monarch.249 He held that βαζηιεύο often had this meaning for ‗king‘ in later Greece so that ―there is usually little risk in so translating it when it appears in Strabo or Pausanias.‖250 But he also held that it did not have that meaning in earlier times when βαζηιεύο was generic for ‗prince‘ or ‗leader‘.251 Having so defined ‗king‘, he held that there were no kings in post-Mycenaean (specifically Geometric) Greece. He thus concluded that the word βαζηιεύο in the ancient sources could not have meant ‗king‘ and that βαζηιεύο should be translated as ‗highborn leader‘252 But he could have defined ‗king‘ as a ‗highborn leader‘, since the semantic range of the word ‗king‘ today easily accommodates that rendering, whereupon he might have found by his own analysis that there were probably many kings in Geometric Greece, and not just a few in Attica.

247 Drews (1983) 100. The dissertation was that of Sigrid Deger (of fame now as Sigrid Deger-Jalkotsky,): see Deger (1970) 56. 248 Amongst those who have argued, tend to argue, or imply, their belief that there were ‗kings‘, are: Hoffman (1956); Starr (1961); Gschnitzer (1965); Rose (1975), Finley (1978), Farron (1979), Luce (1978), Wees (1992), Carlier (1983), Rose (1992), Murray (1993), Carlier (2006). Those who express a contrary view include Andreev (1975), Drews (1983), Runciman (1982), de Polignac (1984), Raaflaub (1993). See also Wees (2011). 249 Drews (1983) 100. 250 Drews (1983) 25. 251 Drews (1983) 116-118. 252 Drews (1983) 102. 63

Rose defined Homeric monarchy as follows:

―By monarchy, I do not mean the Mycenaean wanax exercising sweeping authority over an extensive area and administering his realm through a highly complex bureaucracy (Ventris and Chadwick 1973: 120), but rather a basileus, ruler of a relatively modest area including an urban aggregate who ruled through his personal prestige, wealth, and prowess at war. His immediate circle consisted of the heads of large estates, who acted as advisers in peace and as offices in war. But the primary vehicle by which he carried on public business was an open, proto-democratic assembly of the adult male population. In this area he regularly settles private disputes as well . . . ‖253

The Iliadic image of a βαζηιεύο in the nature of an Achilles, like Odysseus, capable of extreme brutality and revengefulness but otherwise abstemious and devoted to honour, can be contrasted with the Odyssean image of a βαζηιεύο represented by Odysseus himself: unprepossessing, avaricious,254 devious, revengeful and prodigiously mendacious.255 Consider, in this regard a recent description of Lord Byron: ―scandalous and tragic, brilliant and tortured, someone who captures all the glamour of the human condition from the gutter to the gods.‖256 It is possible to so characterize Odysseus.

The use of ‗king‘ today is analogous to the use of βαζηιεύο in Homer. Its use today where the context does not concern political office is most often to denote ‗the best‘ or ‗best exemplum‘ in respect of the subject to which it is applied.257 It applies in other contexts as well. In the Ath. Pol. 41.3. βαζηιεύο can be a person‘s name. Consider also Aristotle‘s use of βαζηιεύο applied to bees.258 And Aristophanes, compared the cock to the Persian monarchs who were its successors (as Aristophanes would have it) as rulers of Persia: δηὰ ηαῦη‘ ἄξ‘ ἔρσλ θαὶ λῦλ

253 Rose (1992) 95. 254 The Hesiodic βαζηι῅εο are also covetous (δσξνθάγνο): Hesiod, Works and Days, 38-39 and see 203-212, 248- 273. 255 cf. Farron (1979). In regard to modesty in the acquisition of material goods compare the respective attitudes of Odysseus and Achilles in Homer, Iliad 9 and 19, and note at 9.310-315 Achilles expressing disdain for the Janus faced nature of Odysseus. 256 Rupert Everett, BBC Channel 4 documentary, The Scandalous Adventures of Lord Byron. 257 Ath. Pol. 41.3. 258 Mayhew (1999). 64

ὥζπεξ βαζηιεὺο ὁ κέγαο δηαβάζθεηἐπὶ η῅ο θεθαι῅ο ηὴλ θπξβαζίαλ η῵λ ὀξλίζσλ κόλνο ὀξζήλ.259 Aeschylus also refers to kingly birds.260

The βαζηι῅εο were Homeric heroes, all of whom possessed, it seems pre-conditionally, ἀξεηή. They were ‗kings‘ of men, but in the wider semantic range of ‗king‘, they were ‗king-men‘, the best exempla of men by the prevailing standards.

As for the political sense of the word ‗king‘, to those for whom the translation ‗king‘ for βαζηιεύο is thought inconvenient because of what would be the abundance and variety of kings in Homer, Carlier‘s answer is compelling:

―In French, in spite of a very monarchical tradition, there is nothing shocking in saying, ‗il y a douze rois autour du roi‘, ‗there are twelve kings around the king‘ or ‗Untel est plus roi qu‘Untel‘, ‗So-and-so is more king than So-and-so.‘ It is evident that Homeric kings are very different from Louis XIV, but they are kings nevertheless.‖261

Adapting Carlier‘s approach it can be said in respect of Keleos, king of Eleusis, that there were five kings around the king: Triptolemos, Dioklos, Eumolpos, Polyxenos and Dolikhos. 262

The monarchs who are hereditary rulers are not necessarily, or always, what scholars call kings, and what the rest of us call kings are not necessarily hereditary rulers. The word ‗king‘ is polysemic. The sufficient and necessary condition of today‘s use of the word ‗king‘ is that the person bearing the title must be at least exceptional, political or otherwise, in some way. Within the ἀξηζηείαη of the Homeric heroes there lies the idea of a person deserving of exaltation, properly called βαζηιεύο, but not necessarily because of his political status.263

It is clear that the semantic fields of ‗king‘, ‗monarchy‘ and βαζηιεύο, amongst others, demand detailed analysis in particular because the word which has almost universally been taken to be

259 Aristophanes Birds 580-588. 260 Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 114-115. 261 Carlier (2006) 104. 262 Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 474- 478 , 149-155 . 263 cf. Rose (1992) 103 referring to the ambiguity of ‗βαζηιεύο‘ in the Odyssey, ―There is not even a clear terminology to distinguish a true king and a rich would-be oligarch.‖ 65

the appropriate translation for βαζηιεύο is ‗king‘.264 The annual Athenian βαζηιεύο was not a king in any political sense, and accordingly if βαζηιεύο is to be translated as ‗king‘, the word ‗king‘ cannot be so confined.

The semantic argument sublimates what we want to know in connection with political power in the context of historical analysis:

who exercised the power?

what was the content of the power exercised?

how was the power justified to those who were subject to its exercise?

when and for how long in historical terms did whoever exercised power do so?

by what institutional means was the power exercised?

Designations such as ‗chief‘, ‗king‘, ‗tyrant‘, ‗βαζηιεύο‘, and ‗paramount basileus‘ do not answer any of these questions.

(ii) Political Power

A crucial initial question is: what constitutes the exercise of political power? It is submitted that: he (or it) rules whose will consistently prevails. If the political will of a single man consistently prevails, or consistently tends to prevail, the institutional context is κνλαξρία, strictly defined: rule by one man.265 The range of κνλαξρία extends from despotic rule where the despot‘s will prevails by use or threat of use of overwhelming force,266 through to a κνλαξρία in which the monarch‘s will prevails purely by means of his charisma. In between these forms are forms of κνλαξρία in which the monarch‘s will prevails by means of combinations in various measures of force, custom, tradition, and charisma. In a separate

264 cf. Drews (1983) 25: ―The word basileus . . . has unfortunately been regarded as covering precisely the same semantic field as the English word ‗king‘. One therefore has felt no more reluctance to translate basileus as ‗king‘ than to translate lithos as ‗stone‘.‖ 265 The implicit definition here of political power is frankly discordant with that of, for example, Arendt (1970) which sees power as definable in terms of relationships between ruler and ruled. Here political power is defined in terms of the capacity of the ruler to command obedience to his will, a definition that is more in accord with traditional perceptions of power. cf. Lukes (1974) 28-33. 266 On the idea of an entirely unaccountable monarch cf. Popper (1971) 120: ―No political power has ever been unchecked, and as long as men remain human (as long as the ‗Brave New World‘ had not yet materialized), there can be no unrestrained political power.‖ 66

classification a range of κνλαξρία can be postulated extending from so-called ‗sacral kingship‘, where the monarch‘s will prevails on the strength of the faith of his subjects in a political theological narrative (a ‗theocratic monarchy‘), to κνλαξρία which has no formal ideological basis. This is not to suggest that political theological narratives are equipotent. As Frankfort says for example, comparing the Mesopotamian and Pharaonic systems: ―In Mesopotamia the theological aspect of kingship was less impressive . . .‖267

(iii) Theocratic Monarchy

A theocratic monarchy is different in fundamental ways from a monarchy that is based predominately on coercion by the monarch and/or on his charisma, and in which the procurement of the obedience of the subjects is by fear and/or mere enchantment. One such important difference for present purposes is in respect to any role of the monarch as priest. In theological narrative justifications of political power such as those expressed or implied in Pharaonic ma‘at,268 in Old Babylonian Enûma Eliš and the Code of Hammurabi,269 the Old Testament narratives justifying the monarchies of biblical Israel,270 the expressed and implied narrative of the Bisitun Inscription of Darius I,271 and the theological narrative of Lydian monarchy,272 the monarch is a priest-king. He is king, but only if he is a priest—specially connected to divinity and divinely ordained to rule. Thus, a priest-king purports to be exclusively empowered with respect to the divine, and in some instances purports to incarnate the divine in some way.273 His kingship is explained by his being one with, or an appointee or agent of, the divine; his priesthood is an indispensable element of his right to rule.

267 Frankfort (1948/1978) 231. See also Moret (1902) and id. (1927). 268 See Frankfort (1948/1978) 51-52. 269 Thus, the god Marduk provided a foundation for Hammurabi: King (2007/1915) 35: ―When Marduk sent me[Hammurabi] to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness . . . ‖ 270 See especially Launderville (2003) for his extensive analysis of the theocratic monarchies of Old Babylon and biblical Israel. 271 ―Just as Lord Mazda dwelt beyond the rhythms of the worlds, so had his proxy, the King of Persia, transcended space and time.‖ Holland (2005) 55. Whilst it is a matter of debate the inscription arguably adopts, or at least endorses, the Avesta and other scriptures of Zoroastrianism assimilating Darius and the Achaemenids into its narrative. 272 See Munn (2006) chapter 2. 273 If he is said to be a god it is because the meaning of the word ‗god‘ is allowed to satisfy a relatively low threshold of what constitutes divinity. Under a higher threshold (nearer to an omniscient, ubiquitous, omnipresent and eternal god) he can be perceived as god become man, but in that case he simply falls back to the field of ordinary priest-kings, and becomes a channel to the greater thing from which he devolved himself. The position is 67

Thus, Plato referred to such a connection of priesthood to monarchy in Egypt: ―. . . ὥζηε πεξὶ κὲλ Αἴγππηνλ νὐδ‘ ἔμεζηη βαζηιέα ρσξὶο ἱεξαηηθ῅ο ἄξρεηλ . . . ‖,274 and such monarchies were Aristotle's second type: δεπηέξα δ‘ ἡ βαξβαξηθή (αὕηε δ‘ ἐζηὶλ ἐθ γέλνπο ἀξρὴ δεζπνηηθὴ θαηὰ λόκνλ)275 the monarch being as much bound by the law as his subjects.276 The ‗king‘ part and the ‗priest‘ part of such a monarchy are conceptually integrated; distinct but not separable.

Modern classical scholarship does not make clear the relationship of monarchy to priesthood in what it commonly refers to as ‗sacral kingship‘. Consider Nilsson referring to ancient Athenian monarchy:

―The oldest order of society was the patriarchal monarchy. Under primitive conditions the king was also the chief priest, the supreme guardian of religion in his state, as the father was in the family.‖ 277

It is not clear here whether Nilsson believed that his ―patriarchal monarchy‖ was a theocratic monarchy as above defined, or one where priesthood as the conduct of ritual was merely a dispensable privilege of monarchy; able to be separated from the it without destroying the ideological foundations underlying the monarchy.

An earlier example is Frazer:

―the classical evidence points to the conclusion that in prehistoric ages, before the rise of the republican form of government, the various tribes or cities were ruled by kings, who discharged priestly duties and probably enjoyed a sacred character as reputed descendants of deities.‖278

in essential respects analogous in the instances where the king‘s body is perceived to be the harbinger of the deity whilst the king lives. For some well known, and some not so well known instances, see Sasaki (1990) 117-119. 274 Statesman, 290d-e. 275 Politics, 1285b.24-25. 276 Thus, Frankfort (1948/1978) 51 in regard to the pharaoh: ―The king lives under the obligation to maintain maat.‖ Narratives other than theological narrative justifications of political power do exist but such narratives can be difficult to distinguish from theological narratives: see on this, for instance, Gentile (2001) arguing the political-theological characterises of Italian fascism under Mussolini. 277 Nilsson (1964/1952) 243. 278 Frazer (1922) Vol. 1, 47. 68

The irony in this assertion is that the classical evidence Frazer relies on is evidence of the existence in ancient Greece of vestiges of such kingship, including the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο.

As will become apparent, when we look for evidence in the archaic sources, we do not find any evidence of the existence in ancient Athens of a theocratic monarchy, and scant evidence of the monarchic types (if they are describing different types) referred to by Nilsson and Frazer above. 279

(iv) Monarchy by Primi Inter Pares

In the perspective of political power that focuses on the prevalence of political will, primi inter pares are monarchs—to be primus is to have one‘s political will consistently prevail; what other implication can primus usefully have? A primus inter pares who rules by persuasion, effected by use of charisma unaccompanied by use or threat of use of force, operates within a milieu in which the pares are equalized not by reference to their respective charisma, but by reference to perceived military strength. It is a mistake to think that consensus precludes the possibility of a dominant will. The power of a primus inter pares can include the capacity to determine how the other pares perceive their own interests.280

For Raaflaub, a Homeric βαζηιεύο was a primus inter pares but not a monarch.281 But whilst his emphasis is on how rule was effected (persuasion as opposed to force of arms, or of law, or custom),282 here the emphasis is on whose will the exercise of power expresses, thus emphasizing the important distinction between κνλαξρία and forms of power exercised by collective will. In the case of primi inter pares it also keeps any ritual role of the monarch entirely separate, unshared, from those with whom the monarch is said to be equal.283 Consider in this context Ogden:

279 Launderville (2003) makes a persuasive case for theocratic monarchies in biblical Israel and Hammurabi‘s Babylon but in attempting to make the same sort of case in respect of Homer‘s Epic Poems he tends merely to demonstrate the conceptual difference between Homeric monarchy and the others. 280 The role of persuasion by A over B can include causing B to misapprehend his interests, thus A‘s use of power can be to cause B to act in a manner contrary to his interests. cf. Lukes (1974) 34. 281 Raaflaub (2011) 811. 282 In Fried‘s, big-man society the big-man has authority but does not have institutionalized power: Fried (1967) 83. Leadership is based on charisma, cf. Weber (1978) 215-216. 283 On the importance of this see below at pp. 179-185. 69

―. . . granted that the term basileus denoted in dark age Greece not a monarch but a ruler among peer rulers, it is still inevitable that one basileus was ever stronger that the rest of his local peers, be it by virtue of the common people, weaponry, wealth or personality, and was thereby, informally perhaps, monarch, a primus inter pares such as is Agamemnon in the Iliad or Antinous (and after his death, Eurymachus) among the suitors of Penelope in the Odyssey. And what then was this primus, this aristocrat who agonistically pulled ahead of his would-be peers, but a tyrannos in all but name?‖284

(b) ‗ἄλαμ‘ and ‗βαζηιεύο‘285

The following consideration of the meaning of these words as deduced from Homer and Hesiod is subject to four reservations or limitations in respect to what the words might have meant in ancient Athens.286

First, it is an assumption, rightly or wrongly being made, that whatever can be deduced as to the meaning of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο from the works of Homer and Hesiod was common to Greece as a whole and not idiosyncratic with respect to the societies from which the compositions originated. It would not be enough to justify this assumption to point to evidence of the Panhellenic appeal of the works. As indicated in the Introduction, βαζηιεύο may not even have had quite the same meaning in Hesiod as in Homer. The different historical experiences of the different areas of Greece are bound to have given common words local nuances of meaning, just as they will have been differently accented; even perhaps to the point of being unrecognizable in the manner spoken by a foreigner.287 The use of βαζηιεύο in Homer and Hesiod is not proof or even evidence of its use in contemporaneous Athens, and even if the

284 Ogden (1997) 151. 285 See on the semantics: Fanta (1882); Stegmann von Pritzwald (1930) 13-46; Gschnitzer (1965); Grimm (1967); Benveniste (1969) 23-95; Deger (1970) 45-61; Drews (1983) 98-108; Carlier (1984) 140-150 and 215-230; Yamagata (1997) 1-14; Carlier (2006) 101-109; Schmidt (2006). 286 These are in addition to some more general reservations mentioned in the Introduction to the present work. 287 Wyatt (2007) 783 makes the following observation: ―In general, Greeks made little comment about dialects. There was no ancient, common, standard Greek, as there is (more or less) a modern standard English; it seemed natural to them that the people of different city-states had different patterns of speech, and every Greek could understand every other Greek regardless of dialect.‖ However, it seems unlikely that different patterns of speech combined with different accents would not have made at least some Greeks unable to be understood by others. 70

word was used in contemporaneous Athens we cannot say that it would necessarily have had the same meaning there as it had in Homer or Hesiod.

Second, the meaning of words can only be obtained from the characteristics of their referents. The Homeric Epics tend not to give those characteristics in two crucial areas.

(i) In discussing the use of ἄλαμ in Homer, Carlier stated: ―ἄλαμ is frequently followed by a genitive indicating who is ruled . . .‖ (emphasis added). It is simply taken for granted that ἄλαμ means ‗ruler‘, yet the passage just cited occurs in an article in which Carlier was seeking to elucidate what ἄλαμ meant!288 To a degree Palaima also appears to presume meanings in the effort to expose them. He argues that Homeric tradition ―self consciously‖ uses names such as ‗Priam‘ and ‗Paris‘ for their meaning in Luwian (Luvian), the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages: thus, Priam from Luwian Pariya-muwas, with Indo-European stem *perh (birth), and Paris from Luwian Pari-LÚ with Indo-European stem *meuh1/h3 (abundant, fecund). Hence, in relation to those words and the words ‗Hector‘ (in Homer, the agent for the preservation of the community), Ἰθη-άλαζζα (according to Palaima: ―she who secures profit by force‖) and Ἀζηπ-άλαμ (according to Palaima ―he who secures profit for the town‖), Palaima argues: ―it would seem that the Homeric tradition is actively manipulating these redende Namen in sophisticated ways and with a clear understanding of their inherent meanings‖ (emphasis added).289

There may have been a ‗Trojan War‘ but if in a mere generation it is the case today, as it surely is, that a war story can turn mere mortals into super-humans, and ordinary events into the fantastic, why should we expect less of the ancient past? Undoubtedly, the meanings of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο are a function of what, for example, Troy, Pylos and Mycenae were. However, except in the barest detail, and then in general only formulaically, and in any event inconsistently, Homer‘s poems do not tell us what they were, or where they were, if in fact the poems can be taken to purport to refer to any actual places at all.290 If the places significant in

288 Carlier (2006) 101. 289 Palaima (2006) 58. 290 Consider Chadwick (1967) 415, in relation to this: ―Since 1955 my views on the authenticity of the account of Mycenaean Greece preserved by Homer have changed, and I now believe the Homeric evidence to be almost worthless for this purpose. One major reason is precisely the complete lack of contact between Mycenaean 71

Homer were pure figments of the Homeric imagination, the poems may be referring to strongholds and surrounding territory, or to supernatural realms above and beyond both time and space, or to one of a number of possibilities in between — just as Odysseus and Achilles occupied some space between that of the divine and the mortal.291 For instance, Hades, as ἄλαμ of the deceased, presides over the ‗Underworld‘292 but it is debatable that the Homeric conception of that place was that of a measurable political territory.293

(ii) A second area in respect of which Homeric epics in general omit a set of referent characteristics concerns entitlement. Again, it is unarguable that the meaning of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο is a function of the entitlements attached to the position (socio-political or whatever it could be) that is identified by those words. However, the poems give the barest of clues as what those entitlements are. What for example are the formal powers and prerogatives, if any, of Agamemnon in his capacity as ἄλαμ? What are his formal privileges because he is a ἄλαμ?

In reference to ‗ἄλαμ‘ and ‗βαζηιεύο‘ in Homer, C. M. Bowra argued that ―there is no distinction at all between the words‖.294 For Finley the words were essentially synonymous and interchangeable, save perhaps in one application: ―in the more than one hundred appearances of βαζηιεύο there is not one in the vocative case in the masculine, or one applied to the gods, whether male or female.‖295

Russo also saw ambiguity in Homer: ―It is often difficult to decide which meaning of ἄλαμ, ‗king‘ or ‗master‘ is involved and βαζηιεύο usually means ‗king‘ but is occasionally used in the older sense of ‗lord‘.‖296

Finley argued that Homer shared a broader contemporaneous mindset that had not resolved how to properly balance monarchy and aristocracy, and that his terminology reflected an geography as now known from the tablets and from archaeology on the one hand, and from the Homeric accounts on the other.‖ See also in regard to inconsistency and its possible implications Wiener (2011) 535. 291 See Finley (1954/2002) 156-174 commenting on Blegen (1963) 20 and Schliemann‘s letter of August 1873 to Charles Newton. Note in this context Bittlestone (2005), a search for Homer‘s Ithaca and the site of Odysseus‘ Palace. 292 Iliad, 20.61. 293 See on the topography of the ‗Underworld‘ Edmonds (2011). 294 Bowra (1934) 60 cf. Geddes (1984) 28. 295 Finley (1957) 141. But see note 265 below. 296 Russo (1992) in relation to Odyssey, 20.194. 72

aristocratic desire ―to reduce kingship to a minimum.‖297 But perhaps there was no aristocracy, properly speaking, in the Homeric world, and the poems are dealing with terms that are not concordant with a rigorous epistemological framework of socio-political thought.298

Third, there is no reliable use of Homer and Hesiod, and for that matter the lyric poets, as mutually corroborating in some significant way. The works are concerned with different things, and are not entirely contemporaneous.299

Fourth, in the midst of speculations on the meaning of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο by reference to the Homeric poems, there may be a tendency to overlook, or at least discount, the effect of the temporal disconnection of their author(s) with the socio-political milieu in which the word is said to have been in practical use. How are we to presume that their author(s) would have known what it is claimed the words meant in their original context? In relation to ἄλαμ, what chain of transmission would have preserved the primal Indo-European roots that Palaima asserts such that it was ultimately bequeathed to Homer uncorrupted in any significant way from its origins perhaps as much as a half a millennium before Homer‘s time.300 It is attractive to conceive that the composer(s) of the poems, armed with knowledge that the ἄλαμ was perceived to be linked ―through blood-ties to ancestral and divine power‖, deliberately chose Palaima‘s ―redende Namen‖,301 in effect also knowing the alleged Hittite etymology of the Namen, so to give the Iliad a more powerful consistency and coherence. This seems, and probably is, too good to be true. Original meaning is notorious for its lack of staying power, especially where it is not recorded for objective reference; semantic gaps go hand in hand with temporal gaps.

The truer position is perhaps best stated by Andreev:

―All diese Beobachtungen überzeugen uns darin, daβ sowohl das Königreich Agamemnons als auch die anderen Groβmächte des "Heroenzeitalters" für

297 Finley(1954/2002) 74. 298 cf. Calhoun (1934) 192-193 and 301-302 and Edmunds (2004) 44: ―the situation in the Iliad is not fundamentally political and . . . neither Homer nor Hesiod can imagine any political order except one in which there are a number of ‗kings‘ i.e. noble chieftains.‖ For what can be gleaned from the epic poems about contemporaneous state formation see Hoffmann (1956) 153-165; Thomas (1966); Gschnitzer (1971). 299 cf. Raaflaub (2006) 456. 300 See above pp. 63-64. 301 p. 70 above. 73

Homer abstrakte Begriffe ohne realen historischen Inhalt waren, die in seinen eigenen politischen und Alltagserfahrungen keine Analogien fanden.‖302

For Raaflaub it is a matter of intention:

―The epics represent great narrative and great literature, and if we think they are historically important as well, we always need to remind ourselves that they were not intended to be that . . . Knowing that it was not produced for historical purposes should make us extra-cautious and force us to think carefully about appropriate and legitimate methods to extract historical information from it.‖303

In short, we do not know if the poems reliably describe their own time, or some other, or if they contemplate no particular time at all—perhaps in relation to time Homer stands before the societies of the poems as Tolkien to the societies of Tolkien‘s imagination. However, that does not preclude use of Homer and Hesiod for the purposes of gaining insight into the contemporaneous meaning of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο, just as Tolkien‘s use of word ‗lord‘ is not divorced from contemporary meaning simply because used in a plot that has no real temporal setting. However, even here it is well to consider Cartledge: ―Homeric language was a Kunstsprache never actually spoken outside the context of an epic recital.‖304

Subject to the foregoing four reservations it can be said of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο in the Epic Poems:

(i) if there are significant distinctions between the words they are the following:

—the ἄλαμ can be divine or human; a βαζηιεύο is always human though a βαζηιεύο can have supernatural aspects.305

—ἄλαμ occurs very often in formulas suggesting that the word is an inheritance from an old tradition.306

302 Andreev (1979) 368. According to Andreev Homer did not know a sceptre from a gavel. 303 Raaflaub (2006) 449-450. 304 Cartledge (2001) 157. 305 Example, Ajax before his duel with Hector with respect to Zeus: Iliad 7.194. It should be observed here that in Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns and in the Epic Cyclic, Zeus is sometimes called ‗βαζηιεύο‘. 306 cf. Carlier (2006) 101. There is, however, a rare formulaic use of βαζηιεύο, for instance, of Agamemnon: βαζηι῅α πνιπρξύζνην Μπθήσεο — Homer, Iliad 7.180 and 11.46. 74

—ἄλαμ unlike the βαζηιεύο is highly variable in relation to its subject matter. An ἄλαμ can be ἄλαμ with respect to a place: example Ithaca;307 to a person: example Odysseus to Penelope;308 to a dog: example, Odysseus to Argus;309 a weapon: example, Odysseus to his arrows;310 to household furniture: example, Hephaestus to his bed;311 and even to the dead: example, Hades to the deceased.312

—ἄλαμ occurs in the vocative; βαζηιεύο does not.313

—ἄλαμ can be a mere honorific, and in that context used perhaps obsequiously, and even disingenuously.314

—ἄλαμ tends to be exclusive. We find, for example, βαζηι῅εο of the Αrgives, but not άλαθηεο of Troy.

—the βαζηι῅εο can be ranked. Hence, we find βαζηιεύηαηνο and βαζηιεύηεξνο.315

— an ἄλαμ tends to be referred to also as βαζηιεύο, but a βαζηιεύο is not always, or even often, an ἄλαμ.

—the use of ἄλαμ can involve poignancy and emotion.316

(ii) if there are similarities between the words they are:

—ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο can have feminine forms: thus ἄλαζζα and βαζίιεηα.317

307 Odyssey 13.194. 308 Odyssey 21.9; 21.56. 309 Odyssey 17.296; 17.303; 17.318. 310 Odyssey 22.119. 311 Odyssey 8.269. The text is ambiguous as between an honorific for Hephaistos, or lordship of his bed—the better reading in context is the latter. 312 Iliad 20.61 cf. Iliad 15.188. 313 But compare with the feminine βαζίιεηα. 314 Example, Odyssey 6.149: Odysseus applies ἄλαζζα to Nausikaa when at the time he has no grounds to do so other than that he needs her help. 315 βαζηιεύηαηνο: Iliad 10.239-240 applied to Agamemnon; βαζηιεύηεξνο Odyssey 15.533 — the translation of βαζηιεύηεξνλ there could be ‗nobler‘ but in context ‗more kingly‘ is better. 316 See Schmidt (2006) 445-446. 317 ἄλαζζα: Re. Nausikaa: Odyssey 6.149; 6.175; Re. Athena: Odyssey 3.380. Also Homeric Hymns to Demeter 75, and 492; to Selene 17; and, to Aphrodite 92. βαζίιεηα: there are numerous instances, for example, Penelope, Odyssey 4.770 and 16.332. But unlike βαζηιεύο, βαζίιεηα is used in the vocative, for example, Odyssey 7.241 and 13.59, Odysseus addressing Arētē. 75

—to the extent that they fall to individual description they are all fantastic in one way or another: they are all of them people to sing about.

—not unrelated to references in (i) above, they can be seen to be intercessors with the divine to secure the interests of their communities.318

(iii) The words can be compared by reference to their respective roles.

The ἄλαμ tends to be

—a helper, especially in a patriarchal sense:

Consider in this regard the prayer of Odysseus to Zeus: Εεῦ πάηεξ, ὃο ηε ζενῖζη θαη ἀλζξώπνηζηλ ἀλάζζεηο.319

—a protector:

There are numerous passages that present him in this way. For instance, the Trojans call Hector‘s son ‗astyanax‘ (protector of the city).320

The βαζηιεύο

—is custodian of the law;321

—a decider of matters of community interest;322

—a ‗minister' of foreign affairs;323 and,

—a host to foreigners.324

Aristotle, recalling Homer, equated βαζηιεύο with patriarchy,325 and he equated absolute monarchy (πακβαζηιεία) with rule over a household.326

318 cf. Palaima (2006) 56: ―There is a strong tradition in Odyssey 19.109ff. and Theogony 225-47 (and even in Sophocles‘ Oedipus Tyrannus) for the ideological notion of the wanaks (and later basileus) as intercessor with the divine sphere and guarantor of the general prosperity of his community.‖ There seems a degree of hyperbole in this assertion and see below p. 80-81. 319 There are numerous examples: consider Odyssey 20.112. 320 Note especially Iliad 6.402-3. 321 See, for example, Achilles on the significance of the sceptre (Iliad 1.237-9) and βαζηι῅εο in relation to the sceptre: Iliad 1.279, 2.86, 18.556-57; Odyssey 2.231, 4.63-64, 4.621, 5.9, 4.691, 8.41, 16.335. 322 See, for example, Odyssey 19.109-14. 323 On this see Finley (1954/2002) 96-97. 324 See Odyssey 17.416. There are numerous examples: for instance, Iliad 20.83-84 and 24.803. 76

(iv) In general, a Homeric βαζηιεύο is public and arbitral327 or at least power- wielding. If a Homeric βαζηιεύο is to be called a ‗king‘ he is king by reason of his exceptional talents and connections, not least divine connections: ζπκὸο δὲ κέγαο ἐζηὶ δηνηξεθέσλ βαζηιήσλ,ηηκὴ δ‘ ἐθ Γηόο ἐζηη, θηιεῖ δέ ἑ κεηίεηα Εεύο.328

We do no know enough about the wanax and the gwasileus to know if there is a clear line between those words and the use in Homer of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο respectively, and the problem is compounded by the fact that βαζηιεύο and ἄλαμ have no fixed meanings in the poems.

B The Nature of Post-Mycenaean Athenian Monarchy

(a) An End-Mycenaean Starting Point to Dark Age Athens

Linear B tablets found at Pylos suggest that Mycenaean states were divided into provinces, districts, towns and villages, to better organize the collection of taxes from the palatial centre. From that Hall argues: ―it can hardly be accidental that the term basileis, employed to denote the leaders of the nascent polis, had in the Mycenaean period defined local officials at the town or village level.‖ 329

This is of course to generalize from Pylos, but that may not be an unreasonable assumption in relation to Messenia and any other Mycenaean regions in respect of which it can be argued there was a single dominant centre. It is possible that the collapse of the Mycenaean palace system, if there was one, entailed the continuance of a wanax, but not until by the end of the process of Mycenaean decline, as a ruler over the whole of his former territory, but an etiolated form: a chieftain of only the area of a former palace centre, with administrative divisions previously ruled from that centre now autonomous and headed by others having the title ‗gwasileus‘. This idea of continuity between the political organization of a Mycenaean Athens and post-Mycenaean Athens is anticipated in a suggestion of Ruijgh to that effect in 1967.330

325 Politics 1259b recalling perhaps the Iliad 1.544. 326 Politics 1285b. 327 For this purpose, in Hesiod, Kalliopē invests the new born βαζηιεύο with eloquence: Theogony, 80-93. And for a similar role for Hekatē see Theogony 434. 328 Iliad 2.197. See also Iliad 1.178, 2.98, 2.196, 2.445, 4.338, 5.464, 14.27, 24.803; Odyssey 3.480, 4.44. 4.63, 7.49. In Theogony 80-82 they are not only Γηνηξεθήο but also αἰδνῖνο (see also Theogony 44). For Hesiod‘s ‗historical‘ relationship with the βαζηι῅εο see Starr (1977) 126 and Millett (1984). 329 Hall (2007) 59. 330 Ruijgh (1967). See also Palaima (1996) 125 and id (2006) 68-69. 77

Carlier even speculated that the continuity could go back to before the collapse of the Mycenaean palace system by an evolution in the status of the gwasileus during the palatial period.331

This would help to explain the survival of the word wanax (as anax) as an anachronism, and the semantic development of the word gwasileus. It would also be consistent with an observation of Wace in his foreword to the first edition of Ventris & Chadwick that after the Greeks had learned the Linear B script it is probable that it ―continued in use, and perhaps even overlapped the first appearance of the Greek adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet.‖332 To the argument that if this was so archaeological evidence would have yielded evidence to that effect, it can be observed that it was only by reason of the fortuitous destruction by fire of the Palace at Knossos that evidence of Linear B was preserved there at all.333

However, if we are to envisage an Attica in the immediate centuries subsequent to the collapse there of a Mycenaean palace system made up of disintegrated socio-political centres under the headship of big-men or chiefs, 334 bearing the title ‗gwasileus‘ (or in the case of a few, even ‗wanax‘ or ‗anax‘) and instigating anew a neo-evolutionary cycle headed for a monarchy of a Lydian or Persian kind, we need to accommodate the implications of the archaeological evidence.335 Save for some of its physical vestiges, Mycenaean civilization had disappeared from the Greek world by the ninth century BCE.336 There is evidence of substantial depopulation in Attica during this period.337 We might be compelled to imagine an Attica by the 9th century not as a place of townships, but as a place at best of nucleated settlements. Amongst peoples who are estimated to have had average life expectancies of not more that

331 Carlier (1984) 115-116. 332 Ventris & Chadwick (1973) xxxii. 333 Besides, a loss of a graphemic skill does not mean an end to language. Of the tens of thousands of languages spoken in the course of history, only a small percentage ―have ever been committed to writing to a degree sufficient to have produced a literature, and most have never been written at all.‖ Ong (1987) 7. 334 It should be observed that ‗big man‘ and ‗chief‘ do not necessarily refer to a big, brave and/or strong man. It is useful to recall Frazer‘s warning: ―The idea that the first king was simply the strongest and bravest man of his tribe is one of those facile theories which the arm-chair philosopher concocts with his feet on the fender without taking the trouble to consult the facts.‖ Frazer (1905) 36. In that case we shall have to consider Polybius just such a philosopher! See Polybius 6, 5.4-9.9. 335 On the neo-evolutionary paradigm of big-man society through ranked to stratified society where claims to leadership will come to be decided by law, see Sahlins (1963); Fried (1967); Service (1975). 336 cf. Snodgrass (1980) 11-15. And see id. (1977) 11-12 and (1983). 337 Discussed at pp. 189ff. below. 78

about 30 years, memories of a great palace culture would have quickly faded, or become tales of the fabulous. In Athens the great Cyclopean walls atop the Acropolis were apparently intact, as may have been the elements of a palace architecture. To the people of any settlement that existed there in the centuries following the Mycenaean collapse, the Acropolis with its monumental unnatural emplacements on and around its summit must have seemed an abode that had been constructed by supernatural beings: indeed, by the one eyed giants who gave the walls their name.338 There can be no doubt that the issue of who or what built the ‗Cyclopean walls‘ was alive from the earliest of post-Mycenaean times.339 To these people, and those of any nearby settlements, the Acropolis at Athens was perhaps a wonder of the world, evoking explanations of divine interventions. Athens would surely have had a head start on anywhere else in Attica that at that time might have had the potential to be what Athens would in fact become. A gwasileus heading any settlement at or near Athens would have had at his disposal topographical elements combined with plain evidence of supernatural habitation, at least in the past, to which a monarch could attach his lineage and build a case for divine endorsement of his rule.

However,

(i) there is no consensus that this settlement at Athens was by the 8th century the political centre of an Attica-wide state. With a population so small (Morris submits that it had been reduced to nearly nothing),340 it is difficult to imagine that it could have been the political centre of anything more than the Acropolis and its environs. However, if it is to be presumed not to have been dominant over others at that time, it can also be presumed not to have been dominated at that time by others. The final unification of Attica with its centre at Athens, whenever that was accomplished, must have been preceded by the unification of what would have been the nucleated villages of the broader Athens; and,

(ii) it must at present remain pure speculation that Athens entered the post- Mycenaean period with a Mycenaean palatial legacy, and that even if it did it would

338 See Pausanias: 2.16.5 and 2.25.8 339 It was still alive centuries later for Herodotus: 5.64 and 6.137 and centuries later even than Herodotus for Pausanias: 1.28.3. 340 Morris (2009) 71. 79

necessarily have followed a neo-evolutionary trajectory, even although from a propitious starting point.

In any event, processualist and any other paradigms are of little use where there are insufficient facts with which to test them—the dark age is not so known for nothing. Other sources for insight include Homer and Hesiod, subject to the reservations discussed.

(b) Hesiodic Monarchy

The idealized kingship of Zeus in the Theogony, can be distinguished from the materialistic βαζηι῅εο of the Works and Days. In a small number of instances in Hesiod βαζηιεύο is a designation for clear-cut political pre-eminence.341 Hesiod‘s Zeus was the monarch from whom all monarchs came: ἐθ δὲ Γηὸο βαζηι῅εο.342 Yet Hesiod‘s Zeus was vulnerable. Zeus‘ monarchy is one in which incumbency is the product of turmoil, and one maintained only by vigilance and force: a monarchy liable to be depleted and overthrown.343

Rose argues that Hesiod‘s work has to be seen against a background of socio-political change in which ―true‖ kings were giving way to a landed aristocracy. He queries Hesiod‘s use of the plural βαζηι῅εο arguing that ―he does not mean monarch but oligarchs, powerful landowners who control the settling of private disputes and put on airs by affecting the name basilēes but function in concert.‖344

West makes a persuasive case for a strong oriental influence in Hesiod‘s work.345 Presumably Hesiod‘s sources informed him of the ideological nature of the oriental monarchies. Nonetheless, Zeus, the archetypal monarch, had only force to justify his power. This perhaps confirms the absence from Hesiod‘s day to day experience of monarchy on a higher plane, in particular where power is justified by a theological narrative.

341 With varying degrees of reliability: Theogony: 486, describing Kronos: ―ζε῵λ πξνηέξσλ βαζηι῅η‖; 886, ―Εεὺο δὲ ζε῵λ βαζηιεὺ‖; 897, of Zeus: ―ζε῵λ βαζηι῅α‖; 923, again of Zeus: ζε῵λ βαζηι῅η; 985, of Memnon, ―Αἰζηόπσλ βαζηι῅α‖; Works and Days: 668, ―Εεὺο ἀζαλάησλ βαζηιεὺο‖; fragment 308 in Solmsen (1990), Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, 7.73.3, of Zeus, ―βαcηιεύο θαὶ θνίξαλόο‖ and fragment 144 in Solmsen (1990), Pseudo Plato, Minos, 320d, of Minos, ―βαcηιεύηαηνο γέλεην ζλεη῵λ βαcηιήσλ‖. Hesiod also refers to Amphidamas, Works and Days, lines 654, arguably king Amphidamas of Euboea: see Contest of Homer and Hesiod, line 315. 342 Theogony 96. 343 See importantly Munn (2006) 20-55 and references therein. 344 Rose (1992) 96. 345 West (1997) 226-333. 80

(i) Menestheus

Homer refers to an Athenian monarch. Although not expressly attracting the title ἄλαμ or βαζηιεύο, Menestheus was, like the others, heroized in Homer.346 Menestheus received favourable treatment by Aeschines,347 and for Xenophon Menestheus was in the same league as Nestor.348 According to Pausanias it was the tradition in Athens that Menestheus was amongst the most valiant of the Greeks; at Troy having been honoured for being amongst the complement of Greek warriors inside the Trojan horse.349

(ii) A Divine Odysseus?

Mondi looked for ―divine kingship‖ in Homer and concluded: ―We can say . . . that the Iliadic tradition knows of a period when kings were regarded as endowed with some degree of divinity, but recalls it only dimly, and from a great distance.‖350

Mondi could go no further than describe an ―implicit‖ divine sanction for rule by Odysseus. He could not point to, nor did he address the issue of, an explicit narrative. In fact he saw in the Odyssey a degradation of language such as that anax often means merely ―head of the household‖ and skēptron ―a beggar‘s cane‖.351

Admittedly there are passages in Homer that are open to interpretation consistent with the notion of the monarch as the agent of a righteous god; for instance Odyssey 19.107-14, could be mistaken for being biblical, although dismissed by Finley as anachronistic:352

ὦ γύλαη, νὐθ ἄλ ηίο ζε βξνη῵λ ἐπ‘ ἀπείξνλα γαῖαλλεηθένη· ἦ γάξ ζεπ θιένο νὐξαλὸλ εὐξὺλ ἱθάλεηὥο ηέ ηεπ ἢ βαζηι῅νο ἀκύκνλνο, ὅο ηε ζενπδὴο ἀλδξάζηλ ἐλ πνιινῖζη θαὶ ἰθζίκνηζηλ ἀλάζζσλεὐδηθίαο ἀλέρῃζη, θέξῃζη δὲ γαῖα

346 Iliad, 2.552, 4.327, 12.331 and 16.173-4. 347 Aeschines: 3.185. 348 Xenophon, Symposium, 1.12. 349 Pausanias 1.23.8; see also Plutarch, Kimon, 7.5.l. However, he is notable for his absence from Euripides Iphigenia in Aulis 185-296. 350 Mondi (1980) 212. 351 Mondi (1980) 212. 352 Finley (1954/2002) 88. 81

κέιαηλαππξνὺο θαὶ θξηζάο, βξίζῃζη δὲ δέλδξεα θαξπῶ,ηίθηῃ δ‘ ἔκπεδα κ῅ια, ζάιαζζα δὲ παξέρῃ ἰρζῦοἐμ εὐεγεζίεο, ἀξεη῵ζη δὲ ιανὶ ὑπ‘ αὐηνῦ.

A second passage, Iliad 2.204-206, has the words: εἷο θνίξαλνο ἔζησ, εἷο βαζηιεύο, ᾧ δ῵θε Κξόλνπ πάτο ἀγθπινκήηεσζθ῅πηξόλ η‘ ἠδὲ ζέκηζηαο, ἵλά ζθηζη βνπιεύῃζη. This has been translated: ―Let there be one ruler, / one king, to whom the son of devious-devising Kronos / gives the scepter and right of judgment, to watch over his people.‖353

This conjures up the notion of the king as shepherd, a common element in theocratic monarchies,354 but the translation seems a generous substitute for a simple reference to the act of ruling.

Nor should attempts to idealize the Phaiakian monarchy be overlooked.355 But there simply is not enough in the text to make of Alkinous a theocratic monarch.

(iii) Feudal Monarchy—Why the Comparison Fails356

Feudal monarchy resulted from an amalgam of two principal ideas: patronicium, the Roman practice of client and patron, and Gefolgschaft, the Germanic practice of warrior allegiance and fidelity to a chieftain. The feudal monarch was to his vassals as a master to his servants: in return for his vassals‘ fidelitas, manifested inter alia in their provision of unpaid military service to the monarch, the monarch would provide land to his vassals, and order and justice in general. Whilst the monarch was not a mere primus inter pares, he was part of a hierarchical system of reciprocal relationships in which he was expected like everyone else in the hierarchy (save for those at the very bottom who were reduced to serfdom) to earn the allegiance of those immediately beneath him in the hierarchy. John of Salisbury held that the monarch‘s power was sacred in nature; that his power was rightfully absolute since his primary duty was to

353 Bertelli (1995) 10. 354 The theocratic monarch can be father and shepherd. Pausanias says that Cyrus was called ―father of men‖ (παηὴξ ἀλζξώπσλ θαινύκελνο): Pausanias, 8.43.6. 355 See Launderville (2003) 293-294, 296, 303, 337, 342. Note also Finley (1954/2002) 152: ‗In so far as there is identifiable reality in Phaeacia, it is the monarchy, not substantially different in structure (though very different in tone) from monarchy in Ithaca.‘ 356 This connection has a long lineage. See for instance, Lang (1905) where Agamemnon is overlord and the Archaean basilēes his vassals. But compare the negative view of Strasburger (1953). Cutting across this issue are doubts about the epistemological foundations of the very notion of feudalism. 82

represent and protect the Church, in effect on behalf of its head, the Pope in Rome.357 This perspective was consistent with the prevailing doctrine of the origins of the right to custody of the Church as the bequest of Christ to St Peter, and his bequest in turn to the Bishop of Rome.

Carlier submitted that the important points of argument in comparing Homeric monarchy to that of feudalist are issues relating to land ownership, or customs that governed the day to day relationship of monarch and subject, such as for example gift giving, or the chain of political command.358 However, these distinctions are not what disqualify Homeric βαζηι῅εο as feudal type monarchies. They are disqualified because the βαζηι῅εο cannot be shown to justify their power on the basis of a political theology. A Homeric βαζηιεύο cannot be shown to have anything more than a marginal role in non-military affairs, including anything that might remotely be called ‗religious affairs‘. Indeed, a Homeric βαζηιεύο is open to be described as a mere Heerkönig, a warlord.

(iv) The Godless βαζηι῅εο

Finley effectively took the gods out of the picture altogether. For Finley, ‗monarchy and community‘ held only a fall-back position in order of importance relative to ‗oikos and kin‘. Finley saw in this the basis for a description of a real world struggle of ‗king-aristocrat‘ and a ‗community principle‘ with aristocratic oligarchy founded on the oikoi. He believed that the aristocrats won: ―By the time the Odyssey was written the defeat of the kings had been so complete that kingship was gone from most of Hellas. In its place the aristocrats ruled as a group, equals without a first among them.‖359 In respect of Athens it is hard to see how this outcome could be consistent with the orthodox story of the origin of the annual βαζηιεύο, someone who whilst in office held a privileged position with respect to the gods. A βαζηιεύο of the Homeric type (and certainly of the Hesiodic type) does not seem to be someone who could be taken to be the origin of a chain of entitlement to the exercise of serious religious prerogatives: he cannot be the βαζηιεύο of whom the annual Athenian official of the same title is said to be a vestige.

357 Perhaps thinking of papal succession, John of Salisbury did not believe that succession by primogeniture was a necessary element in the political theology of the English monarchy (Policraticus Book 6 at 2) but he did believe that the English monarch once chosen was an emanation of god. 358 Carlier (1984) 178. 359 Finley (1954/2002) 98. 83

Thus, the special relationship of the βαζηι῅εο with the gods is largely coincidental to their power; it is not portrayed as a justification for it. Indeed, in the Homeric world it is not just the βαζηιεύο who is dispensable, monarchy itself is dispensable. The monarchies of Homer were still at a stage where the rule of a βαζηιεύο was contingent on the strength of his personality and arms, rather than on his adherence to the rules of a political theology. This can be demonstrated in two ways by reference to what the text says, and does not say, about the nature of Homeric rulership, and by what the text does not say about succession. In qualifying ἀλάζζσ (‗to rule‘) applied to monarchic rule, the poems use the word ἶθη (mightily) enough times to make its use with ἀλάζζσ formulaic. Thus: ἶθη ἀλάζζεηο;360 ἶθη ἀλάζζεηλ;361 and, ἶθη ἄλαζζελ.362 No such formula is used in the poems to condition other power relationships such as that of master and household, thus justifying the conclusion that the formula is not casually applied to monarchic rule for metrical convenience. Rule by might is what is characterized as the quality of governance, such as it is, described in the poems.363

As for succession the text does not permit any inference to be drawn that it was a foregone conclusion. Hence, in Homeric monarchy it was not a case of ‗The king is dead. Long live the king!‘ Instead it was a case of:

―‗The king is dead! The struggle for the throne is open!‘ That is how the entire Ithacan theme of the Odyssey can be summed up. ‗Rule by might‘, in other words, meant that a weak king was not king, that a king either had might to rule or he did not rule at all.‖ (Emphasis added).364

It was a monarchy like the monarchy of Zeus. That Zeus was powerful is clear365 but this is unconditional power; it is not a power that embodies any obligations to the community. Nor did Agamemnon see himself as having any obligations to Zeus.366 In theocratic monarchy there is a symbiosis of community, monarch and divinity: the monarch in effect became the

360 Iliad, 1.35 and 450. 361 Iliad, 6.427. 362 Odyssey, 11.280 and 17.440. 363 cf. Finley (1954/2002) 72-73. 364 Finley (1954/2002) 73. 365 See for instance, Iliad, 9.23-9.25. 366 Iliad, 9.29-9.49. cf. Carlier (1984) 193, 202-203. 84

embodiment of his people. It is in fact striking in Homer how little a specific role in the overall plot there is for the δ῅κνο.367

It can therefore safely be concluded from an examination of the archaic sources that there is no case to be made from them that the Athenian βαζηιεύο could have been an offspring of a theocratic monarchy. However, it remains to consider the nature of the ancestral Athenian monarchy of which Plato and Aristotle and other classical period literary sources suggest the existence.

(d) Monarchy in Other Archaic Sources

In archaic sources other than Hesiod and Homer references to specific archaic Greek monarchs are perhaps to be found in Tyrtaeus and Eumelus. Tyrtaeus refers to the Spartan king Theopompus,368 Eumelus arguably refers to king Phintas, the Messēnian.369 Recalling that the focus of the present study is Athens, nothing especially useful can be made of these references; they are not sufficiently detailed to materially advance understanding of what was possible in ancient Greece as to types of monarchy that might have existed.

C Ancestral Athenian Monarchy

(a) Classical Greek Theorizing

The intuitive appeal, if and however misinformed, of the idea of the necessity of monarchy is hard to resist. For Hobbes monarchy was that embodiment of ‗common power‘ that kept men in awe.370 For C. S. Lewis monarchy satisfied a spiritual craving: ―Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.‖371 Frazer held that ―the rise of monarchy is the essential condition of the emergence of mankind from savagery‖372 And also from Frazer:

367 But see Raaflaub (2004), Raaflaub and Wallace (2007), and more recently on the role of the people in Homer, Hammer (2009) 27-31. 368 Diehl (1949) ΣΤΡΣΑΗΟ΢, 9-10, no. 4. 369 Eumelus: Kinkel (1877) Vol. 1, 193-192, fragment no. 13. See also Rose (1992) 95 for references, inter alios, to the kings Hektor of Khios, Agamemnon of Kyme, and Knopos of Erythrai. See in general Drews (1983). 370 Leviathan, chapter 13. Compare with Thucydides: 1.6.1-2 in regard to early Hellas. 371 C. S. Lewis, 1944, Essay: Equality. 372 Frazer (1905) 84-85. 85

―Nor . . . is it an accident that all the first great strides towards civilization have been made under despotic and theocratic governments, like those of Egypt, Babylon, and Peru, where the supreme ruler claimed and received the servile allegiance of his subjects in the double character of a king and a god.‖373

It seems reasonable to think that it was at least the intuitive appeal of the idea that there had been a monarchy that led not only Plato374 but before him Herodotus375 and Thucydides,376 and after him, Aristotle, to express the view that the political organization of early Athens was that of monarchy. There is clearly some anthropological speculation in Aristotle‘s recognition that Homer was also repelled (὇κήξνπ ινηδνξεζεὶο) by a Hobbesian state of mankind—clanless (ἀθξήησξ), lawless (ἀζέκηζηνο), and hearthless (ἀλέζηηνο).377 Aristotle held that the πόιηο was a product of nature and that man was a natural product of the πόιηο, but the πόιηο appeared first as a matter of logic as a monarchy.378 But when, and what sort of monarchy was the ancestral form?

Two principal classical sources for ancestral monarchies having existed in ancient Greece are Thucydides and Aristotle. Thucydides theorized that tyrannies followed upon the growing wealth of Greek states.379 Prior to this development, according to Thucydides, there were ancestral monarchies with defined or fixed prerogatives. Hence: πξόηεξνλ δὲ ἦζαλ ἐπὶ ῥεηνῖο γέξαζη παηξηθαὶ βαζηιεῖαη.380

373 Frazer (1922) 48. 374 βαζηι῅εο κὲλ γὰξ ἀεὶ ἡκῖλ εἰζηλ, Menexenus, 238d. Note Shorey (1910) who argued that Plato did not have the Athenian official in mind in his use of βαζηι῅εο and note in the Republic, 544c, monarchy is not included in the four forms of government in Hellas. 375 Herodotus: 5.65.3. 376 Thucydides: 1.13. The passage is ambiguous. On one interpretation monarchy is followed by tyranny with no intervening aristocracy. Andreev (1979) 382 identified Thucydides βαζηιεία as ―eine Form de Adelsherrschaft‖ in effect eliding monarchy altogether, and by that means avoiding a monarchy to tyranny transition. 377 Politics, 1253a5-6 and Homer, Iliad, 9.63-64. 378 Politics, 1252b15-1253a16. It is not intended here to endorse the Hobbesian paradigm. See the severe criticism of the paradigm as long ago as 1875 by Sumner Maine (1875/2005) 256-257. Nonetheless, Hobbes‘ description of the life of man in a lawless society ―solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short‖ is an enduring one precisely because of its powerful intuitive appeal, and the manifest evidence of its continuing realization today in so many places. On the subject of social evolution see Fried (1967); Friedman and Rowlands (1978); Wright (1984); Patterson and Galaty (1987); and Galaty and Patterson (1988); Thalmann (1998) 255-268 and Yoffee (2005) especially chapter 1. For one specific social evolutionary hypothesis see the societas (primitive society) to civitas (civil society) trajectory of Lewis Morgan discussed in White (2007) 138, 302. 379 Thucydides, 1.13.1 380 Thucydides, 1.13.1 86

In the course of specifying five types of monarchy, Aristotle implicitly asserted that there had been ancestral monarchies in Greece. Hence, he refers to a class of monarchy that prevailed in the heroic period: ηέηαξηνλ δ‘ εἶδνο κνλαξρίαο βαζηιηθ῅ο αἱ θαηὰ ηνὺο ἡξσηθνὺο.381

These observations of Thucydides and Aristotle raise a variety of questions: when did the transition from ancestral monarchy to what followed it occur, and how long did the transition take? Were there any intermediate stages? What were the fixed prerogatives of the ancestral monarchs? What precisely did Thucydides have in mind by his reference to the παηξηθαὶ βαζηιεῖαη? It may be that the observations were not intended as assertions of historical fact so much as expressions of anthropological theory. Certainly, Thucydides‘ explanation for the rise of tyranny, namely the pursuit of and the growth in wealth of the Greek states, seems to fall into the latter category: however, it is not clear how it fits with theory of inevitable decline: πάληα . . . πέθπθε θαὶ ἐιαζζῦζζαη.382

Aristotle deals with the issue of the prerogatives of the ancestral monarchs where he asserts of them that the monarch was soldier, judge and priest. In the same place he specifies as a fifth type an absolute monarchy, which he likens to the rulership of a master over his household. He thus distinguishes, as Thucydides does implicitly, an unlimited monarchy and a limited monarchy. Aristotle ‗limits‘ the ancestral monarch‘s powers to the categories of military (ζηξαηεγόο), judicial (δηθαζηήο) and those concerned with the gods (η῵λ πξὸο ηνὺο ζενὺο θύξηνο).383

It is not clear what Thucydides believed as to the speed of the transition from monarchy to tyranny, but apparently Aristotle believed the process was gradual and leisurely.384 Nor, according to Aristotle, was the process necessarily one of usurpation: it could be transformative, such as in respect of the tyrannies of, inter alios, Pheidōn, Kypselos, Peisistratos and Dionysos, since they already held positions of power of one sort or another.385

381 Politics, 1285b.1 382 Thucydides, 2.64.3 383 Politics, 1285b.20-25. 384 See in addition to the above: Politics, 1310b1-28. 385 Politics, 1310b25-35. 87

However, whilst Aristotle‘s analysis betrays an interest in sequence, it is essentially typological and normative in its focus, and less anthropological or chronological, reducing itself as it does to a distinction between government which is wise and beneficent, and government which is imprudent and self serving. He thus contrasts the respective aims of what he distinguishes as tyranny and kingship: ἔζηη δὲ ζθνπὸο ηπξαλληθὸο κὲλ ηὸ ἡδύ, βαζηιηθὸο δὲ ηὸ θαιόλ.386

Whenever Thucydides‘ παηξηθαὶ βαζηιεῖαη were thought by him to have reigned, if they were the heroes of Troy, Hesiod consigned those of them who survived to the islands of the blest.387 Thus, for Hesiod the Iron Race did not descend from Thucydides‘ ancestral monarchs.

A third classical source, this time asserting an ancestral monarchy specifically for Athens, is Demosthenes‘ Against Neaira: ηὸ γὰξ ἀξραῖνλ, ὦ ἄλδξεο Ἀζελαῖνη, δπλαζηεία ἐλ ηῆ πόιεη ἦλ θαὶ ἡ βαζηιεία η῵λ ἀεὶ ὑπεξερόλησλ δηὰ ηὸ αὐηόρζνλαο εἶλαη . . .388 The pre-eminence or superiority (ὑπεξέρσ) of the ancestral βαζηιεύο was an inherited quality: he was king because he was indigenous (αὐηόρζσλ). This implies a broad ancestral right to rule, and it seems likely that his performance of all the sacrifices (ηὰο δὲ ζπζίαο ἁπάζαο ὁ βαζηιεὺο ἔζπε)389 was conceived not as merely having been a privilege of his monarchy but as having been a capacity inseparable from it: although quite how all this was rationalized in the 4th century BCE is difficult to construe unless the Athenians of that time believed their ancestral kings ruled over foreigners, or some Athenians who were not considered autochthonous.390

In any event, in general, it has to be considered that the extant ancient writing to the end of the classical period may be reflecting supposition based on models that in effect anthropomorphise forms of political sovereignty, thus giving them a life cycle. A tradition of such thinking goes back to Anaximander391 and is seen in full flight in one form, the ἀλαθύθισζηο of Polybius, although that is an endlessly repeated cycle of: kingship, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy,

386 Note that Aristotle, Politics, 1252b has it that ‗initially‘ poleis were ruled by kings, and that ‗even now‘ ethnē are so ruled. There is an apparent contradiction with Politics, 1285a-b where he has it that for Greeks the only kinds of kingship were the ‗heroic‘ and ‗Spartan‘ types. 387 Works and Days, line 170: θαὶ ηνὶ κὲλ λαίνπζηλ ἀθεδέα ζπκὸλ ἔρνληεοἐλ καθάξσλ λήζνηζη παξ‘ Ὠθεαλὸλ βαζπδίλελ, ὄιβηνη . . . 388 Demosthenes (Apollodoros) 59.74. 389 Demosthenes (Apollodoros) 59.74. 390 On Athenian autochthony see Thucydides, 2.36.1; Plato, Menexenus 237; Lysias 2.17; Isocrates, 4.24, 63, 8.49, 12.124. 391See Diels and Kranz (1985) i.12B 1. 88

democracy, ochlocracy and then a return to kingship.392 Within that cycle the decline of the kingship is due to an inevitable venality and injustice of the founding monarch‘s descendants, and to a degree it reproduces Thucydides‘ notion that the decline of kingship and inception of tyranny is due to an accumulation of wealth. It is not clear though that Thucydides saw wealth as the genesis of the sort of corruption that leads to political disintegration.

But for Plato at least, a βαζηιεύο was not necessarily a hereditary ruler. It will be recalled that both Plato‘s and Aristotle‘s βαζηιεύο: could be elected.393

Whatever the basis of the ancient writing, certainly as far as Athens is concerned, the extant ancient writing up to the end of the Classical period makes no reference to a specific clearly historical monarchy from which the office of Athens‘ annual βαζηιεύο might be said to have first sprung. Nonetheless, the existence of such a monarchy is assumed in the orthodox view as to the origins of the annual office of βαζηιεύο. That view is heavily dependent on the Ath. Pol.

(b) The Ath. Pol.: The Ancestral Monarchy

The first part of the Ath. Pol. is missing. The extant version begins mid-sentence and towards the end of a chapter whose subject was perhaps the attempted usurpation by Kylōn. However, Herakleides‘ epitome of the work, and the summary that appears in chapter 41, suggest that as a whole the first part was about an Athenian monarchy.

To the extent that the Ath. Pol. fragments (and whatever can be gleaned from Herakleides‘ Epitome) can be said to provide a setting for the Ath. Pol.‘s account of the ancestral constitution of Athens, the foundation was laid by Ion.394

Chapter 3 of the Ath. Pol. begins by referring to the office of the βαζηιεύο in chronological terms as the first office in the ἀξραία πνιηηεία in the period before Drakōn (η῅ο πξὸ Γξάθνληνο). Thereafter, the Ath. Pol. purports to set out the historical development of the office during that period.

Hence, the Ath. Pol. would have it that under the ἀξραία πνιηηεία:

392 See Histories, 6.9.9, 6. 4. 7-13 and 5.1-9. 9. 393 Aristotle, Politics, 1285b.1 and Plato, Menexenos, 238d: βαζηι῅ο κὲλ γὰξ ἀεὶ ἡκῖλ εἰζηλ·νὗηνη δὲ ηνηὲ κὲλ ἐθ γέλνπο, ηνηὲ δὲ αἱξεηνί. However, it is not clear here that ‗βαζηι῅ο‘ includes the annual βαζηιεύο (see note 374 above) and that for Plato a βαζηιεύο as monarch could be elected. 394 See for instance Harpokration, s.v. Ἀπόιισλ Παηξῶνο. 89

(i) chronologically the first ruler (ἄξρσλ) was the βαζηιεύο joined later by the polemarch (ὁ πνιέκαξρνο) and the archōn and later still by the Thesmosthetai (Ath. Pol. 3.2-4);

(ii) the office of βαζηιεύο had existed from ancestral antiquity: αὕηε γὰξ ἦλ πάηξηνο395 (Ath. Pol. 3.2);

(iii) the βαζηιεύο was qualified for office by reason of matters to do with his birth and wealth, (Ath. Pol. 3.1);

(iv) the βαζηιεύο was ‗elected‘ (that is, his was not an hereditary position), (Ath. Pol. 3.1);396

(v) the βαζηιεύο originally held office for life but at some time the office became a 10 year tenure (κεηὰ δὲ ηαῦηα [δεθ]αέηεηαλ), and then annual, (Ath. Pol. 3.1); and,

(vi) the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch, but not the archōn, had a part in the ancestral sacrifices (θαὶ ηὸ κεδὲλ η῵λ παηξίσλ ηὸλ ἄξρνληα δηνηθεῖλ, ὥζπεξ ὁ βαζηιεὺο θαὶ ὁ πνιέκαξρνο) (Ath. Pol 3(3) line 14).

In connection with the relative position of the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch (πνιέκαξρνο) there is a scholion to the effect that the polemarch was ὥζπεξ ινραγὸο ηνῦ βαζηιέσο.397

In respect of the length of tenure, the Ath. Pol. is not entirely clear in stating that the tenure for the βαζηιεύο became annual.398 The text at 3(4)3 has it that ―ζεζκνζέηαη δὲ πνιινῖο ὕζηεξνλ ἔηεζηλ ᾑξέζεζαλ, ἤδε θαη‘ ἐληαπηὸλ αἱξνπκέλσλ ηὰο ἀξράο . . .‖ It is nonetheless a fair assumption that ηὰο ἀξράο is not meant to exclude the βαζηιεύο, for then presumably it would also exclude the polemarch and the archōn, and thus be confined to the thesmothetai. The author does not indicate a terminus ante quem for the ἀξραία πνιηηεία. Although, if the Ath.

395 Unless otherwise indicated the text used in the present work is from Kenyon (1920). 396 It is not clear what the text intends to say—selection by vote, or some other form of non-hereditary appointment. 397 Scholion on Plato, Phaedros, 235D. See Wyse (1895) and Rhodes (1992) 100. 398 The word ‗annual‘ in the present context is deceptively simple. See Parker (2007) 192-3 for a consideration of the complexity, and Aristophanes, Clouds, 608-626. 90

Pol. were a true account, and if Medōn and Akastos were not mythical, the terminus would not be later than Medōn or Akastos.399

A reading of chapter 3 of the Ath. Pol. can give the impression that it is asserting that Athens was from its beginning a type of constitutional monarchy: the office of king being originally ‗elective‘ for life. However, there are three reasons for opposing such a conclusion. The author‘s first reference to offices of the state is in the plural (ηὰο ἀξρὰο) so that for the period of the ἀξραία πνιηηεία there was always more than one source of political authority. Second, the statement ηνύησλ δὲ πξώηε κὲλ ἡ ηνῦ βαζηιέσο (αὕηε γὰξ ἦλ πάηξηνο)400 comes out of sequence and it contains its own chronology. Why state αὕηε γὰξ ἦλ πάηξηνο if not to make a distinction between a period to which the expression ηὰο ἀξρὰο relates, and an earlier period to which something else related? Third, there is the cryptic statement: παξαρσξεζάλησλ η῵λ Κνδξηδ῵λ ἀληὶ η῵λ δνζεηζ῵λ ηῶ ἄξρνληη δσξε῵λ (Ath. Pol. 3.3). This suggests by implication that there was some transition from a dynastic regime or hereditary monarchy to the archonship. Furthermore, in chapter 41, the Ath. Pol. summarizes the constitutional history of Athens, asserting that it went through eleven stages. From its primeval beginning the first stage developed by the division by Ion of the people into four tribes each headed by a king (θπινβαζηιεύο). Thence followed the reign of Theseus, a rulership described in effect as being little short of absolute monarchy. Therefore, the implication of the Ath. Pol.‘s chapter 41 summary is that the initial state of affairs was in fact that of a dynastic monarchy.401 And Herakleides refers to an original monarchy in terms pointing to dynastic elements.402 Thus, the Ath. Pol. can be interpreted as saying that the constitutional βαζηιεύο was not primordial, but a later invention.403

399 Hence, the Ath. Pol. at 3.3: ηειεπηαία δ‘ ἡ ηνῦ ἄξρνληνο· νἱ κὲλ γὰξ πιείνπο ἐπὶ Μέδνληνο, ἒληνη δ‘ ἐπὶ Ἀθάζηνπ θαζὶ γελέζζαη ηαύηελ. 400 Note by comparison J.W. Headlam‘s restoration accepted by Sandys (1893) 7: ηνύησλ δὲ πξ[ώη]ε κὲλ ἡ ηνῦ βαζηιέσο, αὕηε γὰξ ἐμ [ὰξρ]ε[ο ἢλ]. 401 The point made here is not affected by the considerable problems (particularly as they concern the existence or otherwise of a Drakōn inspired constitution) involved in trying to reconcile the chapter 41 summary with the contents of chapters 3 and 4. On the subject of the problems involved see, for example, Fritz and Kapp (1950/1974) 9-12. 402 Herakleides, Epitome, 1-2. 403 See also Pausanias, 4.5.10. 91

If the Ath. Pol. is correctly interpreted as saying that a dynastic monarchy actually ended with Kodros it would be consistent with a strong tradition to that effect. However, the text allows the possibility that the archonship began not with Medōn, Kodros‘ successor, but with Medōn‘s successor, Akastos, in connection with some deal that involved the monarchy being ‗cashed in‘ for the privileges or prerogatives of the archonship (ὡο ἐπὶ ηνύηνπ η῅ο βαζηιείαο παξαρσξεζάλησλ η῵λ Κνδξηδ῵λ ἀληὶ η῵λ δνζεηζ῵λ ηῶ ἄξρνληη δσξε῵λ).404 Herakleides has it that the monarchy ended with Kodros because the dynasty had become sybaritic.405 However, Plato suggests that the dynastic monarchy did not end with Kodros.406 If it can be assumed that there was a phase of dynastic monarchy, it can be inferred from the Ath. Pol. that the office of polemarch was instituted during that phase, the cause being the military incompetence (καιαθία) of some of the dynastic monarchs (Ath. Pol. 3.2).

Therefore, the Ath. Pol. asserts ‗election‘, qualification by wealth and birth, and specified terms of office only from a time not earlier than when there were, according to the Ath. Pol., two rulers, the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch, or not earlier than when there were three, with the additional office of the archōn. The picture the Ath. Pol. thus paints is that Athens had been an ancestral monarchy from antiquity until it became a constitutional state of sorts some time before Drakōn, and that in its final form Athens‘ incarnation as a constitutional state was as a triarchy: βαζηιεύο, polemarch and archōn. And since, according to Ath. Pol. 3.2, Ion‘s arrival in Athens was by reason of his being summoned to do so to assist the monarchs militarily, it would seem that the Ath. Pol. places the institution of polemarch after the arrival of Ion.

Within the account in chapter 3 of the Ath. Pol. the story is one of collapse of monarchy that may be presented overall as being one in which the monarchy was partitioned into the triarchy of archōn, polemarch and βαζηιεύο, but the detail is confused. Is it that Medōn (or Akastos) became archōn, upon giving over his religious prerogatives to an official called βαζηιεύο? Or is it that Medōn (or Akastos) retained (or adopted) the title βαζηιεύο, thereafter to be a religious

404 According to Sandys (1893) 7-8 the privileges or prerogatives of the archonship corresponded with those of the monarchy. However, if that were a correct interpretation it would have to be wondered if all that had happened was a change in title. 405 Herakleides, Epitome, 3. 406 Symposium, 208d: where Diotima refers to the self sacrifice of Kodros to save the children of his queen (ὑπὲξ η῅ο βαζηιείαο η῵λ παίδσλ). 92

official only, giving over his political powers to a new official to be called archōn? It may be said that the author of the Ath. Pol. did not actually know; that in truth he was purporting to be writing a history of the sort that Finley described as history that cannot be written: ―They lacked the information and there was no way they could get it . . . we too are incapable of writing a history of this period. That is our inescapable heritage from the Greeks.‖407

However, because of the references to Ion it may at least be speculated that the author of the Ath. Pol. plagiarized or adapted Phanōdemos whose work was arguably available to be read before the date of the Ath. Pol.408 That should not be taken to give the Ath. Pol.‘s account more credibility. Phanōdemos‘ Atthis has enough in it to justify the assertion that it was able to ―show no signs of sharing Plato‘s scruples about the use of untrue stories and poetic techniques for manipulating emotions . . .‖409

Nonetheless, the Ath. Pol.‘s story of the partitioning of an Athenian monarchy has a long history of acceptance by modern scholars.

Rhodes has argued that the Ath. Pol.‘s account of the origins of the archōn, the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch, suffers only from the author‘s ―faith placed in the story of Ion‖, but that otherwise

―the reasoning is sensible enough . . . we can easily understand how the basileus who was once king of Athens had his civil power transferred to an archon and his military power transferred to a polemarch . . . but that the Athenians did not dare to undermine his religious supremacy.‖ 410

But who can we presume to think the Athenians were afraid of. Were they afraid of the king? If so, why were they not more afraid to partition his sovereignty in the first place? Were they afraid of the gods? If so, why should they have thought the gods cared in the least what they did with their king?

407 Finley (1975) 20. Finley‘s counsel would have applied to the attempt by Ledl (1914), inter alios, at the telling of the primordial history of Athens. 408 Jacoby (1954) supplement, vol 2, 156-164 (FGrH325); also collected in Harding (2008) 181-184. 409 Humphries (2004) 104. 410 Rhodes (1992) 99. 93

And what was the supremacy in respect of religion enjoyed by the king? If it existed, who gave it to him? If it was given to him by the gods, when was it so given, under what circumstances, and what is the evidence of this bequest? If it was given to him by the Athenians, why should they have been afraid to take it back?

The author of the Ath. Pol. may have thought that he was writing of events that took place not more than 300 hundred years before his time (if he thought in such precise chronological terms at all). In the absence of any evidence of a documentary basis for the story, objective (as for example, a written record of some sort contemporaneous with the alleged ‗partitioning‘ of the king) or otherwise, we should assume that the author of the Ath. Pol. was relying on some oral tradition, a tradition that must certainly have been at least many generations old. If the true story of the origins of the office of Athenian βαζηιεύο had not been recorded in writing but had been passed on orally, even if it had been known in the early 5th century, it would have become unreliable long before the end of that century, and it could hardly have been more reliable by near the end of the 4th century.411

As to the Atthidographers as a source, there is no reason to think that Atthidographers would have reliably known more about the origins of the office than the author of the Ath. Pol. Not unrelated to this last problem, the first known Atthidographer, Hellanikos, was not earlier that the late 5th century. If he was the first to commit any orally transmitted history of the origins of the office of Athenian βαζηιεύο to writing he would have received the dubious record that will have been the result of the oral transmission for the few generations at least (given that the first reliable reference to the Athenian βαζηιεύο is c. 422 BCE)412 that must have passed by the time of his writing since the office of βαζηιεύο was instituted.413

411 cf. Finley (1975) 27: an oral transmission of facts becomes ―distorted, disputed or wholly fictitious beyond the fourth generation and even beyond the third.‖ Finley, loc. cit, refers to ―a nice Greek illustration: the Homeric heroes recite their genealogies frequently and in detail, and without exception a few steps take them from human ancestors to gods or goddesses.‖ 412 Meiggs and Lewis (1988) no. 73, lines, 54 and 59. But see below, pp. 150-151, in regard to a reference in the canonical archon list to Epainetos in a fragment of Hippys of Rhegion: Jacoby (1954) F3FGrH 554 dated to 636/5 BCE. 413 Bloch (1953) 411 gives a good example, that of the fratres Arvales, of the risk in assuming an institution was formed only at about the time it is first attested. The fratres Arvales can now be shown to have existed long before they are first referred to by Varro. 94

But the Ath. Pol.‘s author may have thought he had a precedent. Herodotus claimed that the Kyrēnians, beset by internal strife and obeying an order of the Delphic oracle, requested the Mantineians to nominate a mediator for them. The Mantineians nominated Dēmōnax, and he ordered that the kingship be partitioned, leaving King Battos I with religious jurisdiction only; the rest of the king‘s sovereignty was given to the people to exercise.414 If this story bears some resemblance to historical fact (and it cannot be assumed that it does),415 it is not without interest in the present context that the partition did not work to keep the peace in Kyrēnē beyond the reign of King Battos. His son Arkesilaos wanted the ancestral privileges to be returned to the king, and the result was even worse strife than that which had led the Kyrēnians to Delphi in the first place.416 In any event, there is no basis for an inference that what happened in Kyrēnē must have happened, or was likely to have happened, in Athens. What could be the basis of such an inference? There is no obvious relevance in the fact alone that the Athenians and the Kyrēnians were Greeks.417

(d) A Vestigial Priest King

The notion of a vestigial priest-king does occur in the some ancient sources. Thus, Aristotle in the Politics:

νἱ κὲλ νὖλ ἐπὶ η῵λ ἀξραίσλ ρξόλσλ θαὶ ηὰ θαηὰ πόιηλ θαὶ ηὰ ἔλδεκα θαὶ ηὰ ὑπεξόξηα ζπλερ῵ο ἦξρνλ· ὕζηεξνλ δὲ ηὰ κὲλ αὐη῵λ παξηέλησλ η῵λ βαζηιέσλ, ηὰ δὲ η῵λ ὄρισλ παξαηξνπκέλσλ, ἐλ κὲλ ηαῖο ἄιιαηο πόιεζηλ αἱ ζπζίαη θαηειείθζεζαλ ηνῖο βαζηιεῦζη κόλνλ, ὅπνπ δ‘ ἄμηνλ εἰπεῖλ εἶλαη βαζηιείαλ, ἐλ ηνῖο ὑπεξνξίνηο η῵λ πνιεκηθ῵λ ηὴλ ἡγεκνλίαλ κόλνλ εἶρνλ.418

414 Herodotus, 4.161. 415 It is not corroborated by any extant source contemporaneous with the alleged events, which are dated as much as 200 years or so prior to Herodotus, or with any other source prior to Herodotus. Other sources are Diodorus Siculus, 8.30; Athenaeus, 4.154; Herakleides relying, like Athenaeus, on a fragment of Hermippus (Müller (1975) FHG, Vol. 3, 36, no.1); and a fragment of Ephorus, Histories (Müller (1975) FHG, Vol. 1, 261, no. 97). Furthermore, the story is one belonging to a topos, that of the lawgiver, and thus must arouse the suspicion that attaches to such topoi. 416 See below regarding the title of Dēmōnax as βαζηιεύο and Waissglas (1956). 417 cf. Finley (1975) 62 cautioning against generalization. 418 Politics, 1285b. 95

Dionysius asserted that the office of rex sacrorum in Rome was instituted on the inception of republican government to preserve the religious functions of the ancestral kings,419 and Plutarch made much the same claim.420

Consider the modern orthodoxy in relation to Athens as expressed by Bengtson:

―Das erbliche Königtum ist in Athen um die Mitte des 8. Jahrhunderts durch ein auf 10 Jahre befristetes, dieses wiederum i. J. 683/2 v. Chr. (dem Beginnjahre der attischen Archontenliste) durch das alljährlich wechselnde Archontenamt abgelöst worden. Mit der Namensänderung - ἄξρσλ statt βαζηιεύο - verband sich eine wesentliche Minderung der Befugnisse: dem Archon wurde für die Kriegführung der Polemarchos (Feldoberst), für die Rechtsfindung das sechsköpfige Kollegium der Thesmothetai („Rechtssetzer―) zur Seite gestellt . . . ‖ 421

The modern orthodoxy also deals with the matter of titles:

―The life-archons were elected from the royal house, and bore the title of βαζηιεύο (Pausanias i 3 § 3). This title was never formally abolished, but survived even in later times in the name of the ἄξρσλ βαζηιεύο.‖422

Furthermore, up to the time of Solon, the

―president of the board of nine magistrates . . . retained the ancient title of βαζηιεύο. It was the βαζηιεύο that presided over the archons when assembled as a judicial body.‖ 423

A very recent rendering of the overall story is the following:

419 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.74.4. 420 Plutarch, Roman Questions, 63. See also Livy, 2.2 and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 4.74, 5.1 421 Bengtson (1950) 97. For a similar account in relation to Rome see Smith (1875) 994, s.v. REX SACRIFICULUS, REX SACRI‘FICUS, OR REX SACRORUM. Reference has been made above to Frazer and Hocart in specific relation to the origin of the Athenian βαζηιεύο, but others can also be mentioned, not least Bausteine (1881), Vol. 2, 84-85, who would perhaps not have been surprised at the coincidence of βαζηιεύο and polemarch, the latter to be envisaged as belonging to a class of Kriegshäuptlinge a member of which, he claimed, could develop alongside hereditary monarchs in primitive societies. 422 Sandys (1893) 6. 423 Sandys (1893) 7 and authorities. 96

―The early government of the Athens was aristocratic. Probably during the later eighth century the chiefs of Attica replaced the position of paramount basileus with three civic officials called collectively archons—that is, ―the leaders‖— who divided the leadership roles among themselves. One of the archons, called the basileus, administered the cults of the polis and judged lawsuits pertaining to cult property and other religious matters. The polemarch (war archon) commanded the army and judged disputes involving noncitizens. The most prestigious office was that of the archon, who had overall supervision of public affairs, including the duties of presiding over the council and the assembly and judging nonreligious cases.‖424

The two elements of the orthodoxy remain, albeit tentatively, at the centre of the story in relation to the βαζηιεύο: (a) that the office derived from a prior monarchy (a ―paramount basileus‖);425 and, implicitly, (b) that the office succeeded to that monarchy‘s religious prerogatives. Nothing in the actual words of the account explains why the βαζηιεύο should have had the alleged ‗religious‘ jurisdictions. However, elsewhere in the same work there is the following in regard to officials with ‗religious‘ responsibility in the early Greek city-states:

―The common use of the title basileus to designate these officials is evidence of the reverence that was still attached to that name.‖

The authors do not say why we should believe that reverence was attached to the title ‗basileus‘426 yet very often the references by those who make this case are to the Ath. Pol.‘s account of how the office originated, the argument thereby becoming circular. In any event, ‗paramount basileus‘ is an ambiguity in relation to ‗religious‘ prerogatives: what connection, if any, was there between the nature of the office of the so-called ‗paramount basileus‘ and the alleged exclusive and solely ‗religious‘ jurisdiction of the annual βαζηιεύο?

424 Pomeroy et al. (2009) 161-162. 425 See above pp. 65-66 regarding definition of monarchy by reference to prevailing will. 426 Pomeroy et al. (2009) 126. 97

D Conclusion to this Chapter

It seems clear that the orthodoxy, at least until and if accepted as revised (as in the above account in Pomeroy et al.), contemplates an unreal scenario. It is unreal for three reasons.

First, it postulates such a strong connection of the monarch with ‗religion‘ that it suggests a theocracy. Thus, it must be from some such perspective that Carlier argued in support of Deubner‘s hypothesis that the annual βαζηιεύο played Dionysus in the annual ritual marriage between the Dionysus and the wife of the βαζηιεύο:

―Elle s'appuie notamment sur plusieurs parallèles: en Egypte, le dieu Amon s'introduit auprès de la reine pour engendrer le futur pharaon sous les traits du pharaon régnant; le mythe d‘Alcmène, Amphitryon et Zeus tire peut-être son origine d‘une croyance analogue. La hiérogamie des Anthestéries est incontestablement un rite très ancien qui date de l‘époque de la monarchie athénienne. L‘une au moins de ses significations anciennes - la conception de l‘enfant royal - a évidemment disparu à l‘époque classique.‖427

The title ‗βαζηιεύο‘ had been held to reflect the co-dependency of ‗religion‘ and power. Thus, Nilsson:

―Religion is always conservative, and therefore the name of king was given in historical times to the highest sacral official of the state . . .‖428

And Ehrenberg:

―At an early date the office [of archon for life] was divided into three; the first was the basileus, a title that could never be abolished as it involved the ruler‘s duties towards the gods.429

And, more broadly, Bengtson:

427 Carlier (1984) 334 and Deubner (1956) 108-109. The ‗marriage‘ is discussed further below pp. 107-117. 428 Nilsson (1964/1952) 243. 429 Ehrenberg (1968) 13. 98

dem König (βαζηιεύο), dessen durch die Tradition geheiligte Würde man nicht vollständig zu beseitigen wagte, blieben mitsamt der Königin (βαζίιηλλα) nur die sakralen Funktionen erhalten . . .‖ 430

Secondly, even if such a monarchy had existed, it is a scenario that the sovereignty of such a monarchy could be partitioned: that the separated elements of priest and king could have performed the function that had been served by the integrated whole.431

Thirdly, the filling of the annual office would be preceded by an annually re-enacted symbolic regicide—the monarchy would come to an end every year along with the ‗reign‘ of its incumbent.432 If, as the orthodoxy alleges, the idea was the retention of an attenuated monarchy, one confined to a ‗religious‘ function, the appointment would at least have to have been for life, with an appearance of succession—not an annual appointment with an appearance of replacement.433

If a revised orthodoxy involves the substitution of a ‗paramount basileus‘ for a theocrat as the seminal entity there is no obvious reason why the annual βαζηιεύο should have had a predominant postion in respect of ‗religion‘. If the ‗paramount basileus‘ is intended to be resonant of the Homeric βαζηιεύο he has at best an ambiguous relationship with gods, and there is no sound basis for arguing that such relationship he has with the gods is indispensable to his rule. What the postion of the annual βαζηιεύο was with respect to ‗religion‘ is the subject of the next chapter.

430 Bengtson (1950) 97. For a similar account in relation to Rome see Smith (1875) 994, s.v. REX SACRIFICULUS, REX SACRI‘FICUS, OR REX SACRORUM 431 Just as in the case of the elements of a bicycle wheel, or an egg, when separated. Bacon says of the person of the English monarch and his sovereignty ―. . . it is one thing to make things distinct, another thing to make them separable, ‗aliud est distinctio, aliud separatio‘.‖ Francis Bacon (1826): The Works of Francis Bacon, Basil Montagu Edition, London: William Pickering, 351, in the Case of the Post-Nati in Scotland (1608). 432And when the vestigial king is said then to have sat side by side with a politician, the archōn, in a society in which religion is said to have been embedded, the arrangement could not have lasted. A society with two heads each with real power, one spiritual and one temporal, is doomed to ruin ―Illa societas est propinqua desolationi et ruinae quae est contra se divisa‖ William of Ockham, Dialogues, III, II. iii, 19. Note also Matthew 12.25 and Solon: ιίελ δ‘ ἐμάξαλη‘ νὐ ῥᾴδηνλ ἐζηη θαηαζθεῖλ (Fragment in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheke, 9.21). 433 This is not to imply that monarchies cannot be periodic and requiring to be regularly renewed: see Smith (1958) 54-58. 99

CHAPTER THREE

὇η Πάηξηνη and the Athenian Βαζηιεύο

CONTENTS

A Ancestral rites 100

(a) νἱ ἀξραῖνη 100

(b) The Ritual Marriage of the Wife of the βαζηιεύο to Dionysos 104

(d) The Eleusinian Mysteries 118

(e) Artemis Agrotera and Enualios 121

B The Role of Other Institutions 121

(a) The Areopagus Council 121

(b) The Phylobasileis 122

B The Ancestral Monarchy and Religion 122

(a) Defining religion 122

(b) ‗Mondialatinization‘ of Athenian Religion 127

C Conclusion 133

100

CHAPTER THREE

὇η Πάηξηνη and the Athenian Βαζηιεύο

ηῶ γὰξ ιαρόληη βαζηιεῖ θαζηλ ηῆδε ηὰ ζεκλόηαηα θαὶ κάιηζηα πάηξηα η῵λ ἀξραίσλ ζπζη῵λ ἀπνδεδόζζαη.434

A. Ancestral rites

(a) ὇η ἀξραῖνη

The phrase παηξῶνη ζενί has been described as untranslatable.435 There is a similar problem of translation with respect to the Ath. Pol‘s νἱ πάηξηνη (or Plato‘s νἱ ἀξραῖνη). Each of νἱ πάηξηνη and νἱ ἀξραῖνη will be rendered here as ‗ancestral rites‘ where the word ‗rites‘ is broadly construed as encompassing customs, or practices (sacrifices and so on) having reference in some way to conceptions called ―gods‖. The categories of ‗rite‘ are not necessarily clear cut.436 The phrase νἱ πάηξηνη as rendered here thus contemplates that a ‗rite‘ can be a festival (ἑνξηή).437 As to the association of πάηξηνο with ‗old‘438 an antonym, ἐπίζεηνο, for πάηξηνο was clearly recognized in contexts distinguishing old rites with new or imported rites, or ―‗additional feasts‘ (ἐπίζεηνη ἑνξηαί, or simply ηὰ ἐπίζεηα)‖.439

The phrase ‗ancestral rites‘ insofar as it is taken to refer to a practice occurring at a given time long after its inception can seem to refer to something stable and unchanged. However, over time nothing is stable and unchanged, in particular social and cultural practices, and it may be that the very idea of ancestral rites is completely artificial in circumstances where there is nothing of the supposed time of inception with which a relevant comparison can be made. That

434 Plato, Statesman, 290e. 435 Parker (2007) 20-21 and see also references in note 57. Parker nonetheless renders παηξῶνη ζενί as ‗ancestral gods‘. 436 ―Smaller organizations such as orgeonic groups and thiasoi seem normally to have spoken of their rites as ‗sacrifices‘, not as ‗festivals‘.‖ Parker (2007) 159. 437 In the wide definition of rite adopted here a procession (πνκπή) can be the conduct of a rite even if irreverent, as in the hurling of insults at the Anthestēria. Thus, in Liddell and Scott (1996) the semantic range of πνκπεύσ includes not only ―to lead a procession‘ but also ―to abuse with ribald jests.‖ 438 The weight of meaning in Liddell and Scott (1996) is on the notion of ancestral rather than on a notion of ancient. Note in that regard another phrase occurring in Ath. Pol. 21.6 and frequently in contexts concerning the gods is θαηὰ ηὰ πάηξηα (according to custom/tradition): see Ostwald (1951) 28, note 22. 439 Rosivach (1994) 54; see also Isocrates, 7.29-30.

. 101

is not to say that broad continuity of practice cannot be demonstrated. For instance, Plutarch reports the continued practice in his day of a number of the Athenian rites of the classical period,440 and the rite of the Bouphonia at the festival of Dipolieia was old for Aristophanes, yet centuries after him Pausanias was able to report some such rite in honour of Εεύο Πνιηεύο still being practiced in Athens.441 However, in this example the rite had by the time of Aristophanes reached a mature form; it is not so easy to contemplate the idea of observable continuity with a rite at the time of its inception and its form centuries later, especially when centuries are not required even for substantial elaboration from an essentially established form. The City Dionysia, for example, whether established in essential final form by Peisistratos in the 530s BCE or much later in the 6th century, was still being modified in the 480s BCE with the addition of comedy.442 Hence, where Burkert said in relation to the Anthestēria: ―[m]ost of the evidence is concentrated in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., but there are isolated documents in Hellenistic and later times as well, so we know that this festival spanned over 1,000 years‖,443 he was surely not wanting to suggest that the Anthestēria found throughout the Greek world, and even beyond, was always and everywhere the same phenomenon in detail as the festival which occurred in fifth and fourth century Athens.

Nevertheless, it is the case that argument has been made that in the Linear B record, in particular the Olive Oil tablets referred to above,444 outlines of a practice like the Anthestēria can be seen.445 Similarly an argument has been made that because it is thought to bear the image of two women and a child, an ivory plaque found at Mycenae should be open to be considered to be representing Demeter, Kore and Triptolemos, with the obvious implication that we can trace the Mysteries to the Mycenaean period. Indeed, Palmer built a case in this

440 Plutarch, Theseus, 18.1, 22.4, 24.4, 27.3. 441 Aristophanes, Clouds, 984-985: ἀξραῖά γε θαὶ Γηηπνιηώδε θαὶ ηεηηίγσλ ἀλάκεζηα θαὶ Κεθείδνπ θαὶ Βνπθνλίσλ. cf. Pausanias, 1.24.4. 442 See discussion in Anderson (2003) 179 and references therein at 270-271. 443 Burkert (1983a) 213-214. Morris (see below pp. 177ff. in relation to state formation) asserts in effect that slavery, at least on a large scale, was a late phenomenon in Athens. This may then have implications for the dates of the Anthestēria and the Kronia both of which featured master-slave role reversal: see Parker (2007) 202-203 on this aspect of those two festivals. Consider also Humphries (2004) 236-237: ―. . . although calendar evidence confirms that the Anthesteria (and Lenaia) were early in date, there is almost nothing that can be said with certainty about the pre-classical Anthesteria.‖ 444 pp. 56-57. 445 Palmer (1961) 125-127. 102

context on the Linear B word yZve (wa-na-so-i) and yZns (wa-na-ka-te) the dative singular of wanax, holding in effect that wa-no-si-i is the dual of wanassa (queen) so that a text reading yZns yZve (wa-na-ka-te wa-na-so-i) could be translated: ―To the King and the Two Queens‖.446

However, whilst not dealing expressly with Palmer, but with this particular way of handling wa-na-so-i, which had been followed by others, Hooker was dismissive: ―The absence of a copula linking the two words (to say nothing of the difficulty of explaining the phrase in terms of cult) makes this theory implausible.‖447

According to the Ath. Pol., speaking in the present at 3(3), the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch, but not the Archōn, had a role to play (δηνηθεῖλ) in the administration of the ancestral rites (θαὶ ηὸ κεδὲλ η῵λ παηξίσλ ηὸλ ἄξρνληα δηνηθεῖλ, ὥζπεξ ὁ βαζηιεὺο θαὶ ὁ πνιέκαξρνο).448 The share in this given by Ath. Pol. 3.3 to the polemarch is expressed to suggest, or at least not to be inconsistent with, some comparability between the polemarch and the βαζηιεύο. The Ath. Pol. is arguably contradictory in this respect since 57.1 of the Ath. Pol. consigns practically all the πάηξηνη to the βαζηιεύο: ὡο δ‘ ἔπνο εἰπεῖλ θαὶ ηὰο παηξίνπο ζπζίαο δηνηθεῖ νὗηνο πάζαο. Plato gives a different emphasis, holding that of the νἱ ἀξραῖνη the most ancient were the preserve of the βαζηιεύο: ηῶ γὰξ ιαρόληη βαζηιεῖ θαζηλ ηῆδε ηὰ ζεκλόηαηα θαὶ κάιηζηα πάηξηα η῵λ ἀξραίσλ ζπζη῵λ ἀπνδεδόζζαη.449 However, it will have been noted that Plato does not report this directly, but as anonymous hearsay.

As for δηνηθέσ in Ath. Pol. 3.3 and 57.1, we can employ a variety of ideas: ‗administer‘, ‗be responsible for‘, ‗control‘, ‗superintend‘, ‗arrange‘. But one can administer without being responsible, and one can be responsible without being in control. And one can administer without directing, and one can arrange without administering or superintending. We do not

446 Palmer (1961) 124. This text appears on Fr 1227. 447 Hooker (1980) §283. 448 See Rhodes (1992) 101, 106, 309, 513 and 515-516 on the use of δηνηθέσ as δηνηθεῖλ in Ath .Pol. 3.3, 6.8 and 27.2; as δηῴθεη in 3.6, 14.3 16.2 23.1; and as δηνηθεῖ in 56.5 and 57.1. Compare the use of δηνηθέσ in these passages with the use of δηνίθεζηο in 24.3 (as δηνίθεζηλ in 43.1). Thus, in Liddell and Scott (1996) δηνηθέσ is given as keeping house, but extended to mean control, manage and administer, and δηνίθεζηο is given as internal administration, as in housekeeping or government financial administration. 449 Statesman, 290e. 103

know the details of the involvement of the βαζηιεύο and we can confidently say no more than that he had a role to play.450

It tends to be assumed that νἱ πάηξηνη in 3.3 of the Ath. Pol. is a reference to things which predated the abolition of the alleged monarchy at Athens. Thus:

―the Basileus, Aristotle writes, was in charge of the ‗ancestral‘ rites at Athens, that is, those which were in existence before the fall of the monarchy at Athens at the end of the Dark Ages.‖451 (Emphasis added).

Both Plato and the author of the Ath. Pol. elliptically assert that of the rites being practiced in Athens at the date of the Ath. Pol. some were ancestral rites. Plato gives no foothold on what precisely these were, and the Ath. Pol. forces us to inference. Given what the Ath. Pol. says in respect of the Archōn in regard to νἱ πάηξηνη, anything allocated to the archōn can be presumed not to be πάηξηνο. But can we presume that anything listed for the βαζηιεύο or the polemarch must be πάηξηνη? Is there a difference between the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch in this respect?

There is a difference in the respect that 57.1 of the Ath. Pol. expressly repeats the reference to νἱ πάηξηνη as being the province of the βαζηιεύο in terms making the province almost exclusive to the βαζηιεύο and arguably, but far from certainly, making νἱ πάηξηνη the only province of the βαζηιεύο. No such reading is open for the equivalent passage (Ath. Pol. 58.1) for the polemarch. There is the additional fact that 58.1 in the Ath. Pol. allocates to the polemarch rites in respect of Harmodios and Aristogeitōn that clearly could not have been πάηξηνη. A problem that the Ath. Pol. creates is that having allocated νἱ πάηξηνη to the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch, and having also allocated a rite that indisputably could not have been πάηξηνο to the polemarch, the Ath. Pol. leaves a doubt about the appropriate categorical designation of the other rites that it allocates to the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch. The relevant specific rites are, in relation to the βαζηιεύο, certain rites in respect of Dionysos, the ritual marriage and the Lēnaia, and the

450 cf. Kenyon (1920) (although he uses ‗superintend‘ in respect of 57.1) and contrast Rackham (1952), ―administer‖, ―directs‖; Moore (2010), ―control‖, ―arrange‖; Fritz and Kapp (1974), the βαζηιεύο was ―in charge of‖, ―administers‖; and, Rhodes (1984b), ―responsible‖, ―administers‖. 451 Padgug (1972) 143. The extant Ath. Pol. itself does not actually assert that what it refers to as νἱ πάηξηνη were in origin prior to the fall of the monarchy, at least not expressly, but see Aristotle, Politics, 1322b.1.26-28. 104

Mysteries and, in relation to the polemarch, rites in respect of Artemis the huntress (ἀγξνηέξα) and Enualios. There is no sound basis for considering that these latter rites were ancestral.452

Presumably the polemarch‘s duties in respect of any νἱ πάηξηνη were considered to have been in origin the responsibility of the βαζηιεύο during the monarchy prior to the commencement of its alleged disintegration.

(b) The Ritual Marriage of the Wife of the βαζηιεύο to Dionysos.

The first reference in the Ath. Pol. is in chapter 3 itself. In 3.5 (b), the Ath. Pol. asserts that the βαζηιεύο did not, but at one time did, occupy a building, the Boukolion (a building that may have earlier been named differently, hence, ηὸ λῦλ θαινύκελνλ).453 The author‘s proof of this, a proof that is at least prima facie a non sequitur,454 is that in the Boukolion the wife of the βαζηιεύο regularly marries Dionysos (ζεκεῖνλ δέ· ἔηη θαὶ λῦλ γὰξ η῅ο ηνῦ βαζηιέσο γπλαηθὸο ἡ ζύκκεημηο ἐληαῦζα γίγλεηαη ηῶ Γηνλύζῳ θαὶ ὁ γάκνο). All this is stated in the context of reference to the ancestral constitution (ἡ ἀξραία πνιηηεία). The implication is that the ritual marriage of the wife of the βαζηιεύο and Dionysos was, at the time of the Ath. Pol., a rite, or at least was a practice contemporaneous with, the πάηξηνη ζπζίαη referred to in paragraph 3.3 of the Ath. Pol.

There are other literary references to a building by the name Boukolion. Thus, the Suda has it that the Boukolion was ‗next to‘ (πιεζίνλ) the Prytaneion.455 And Plutarch locates the Bouzygion, the field of the sacred ox-ploughing, close to the Boukolion.456 However, the archaeological record does not disclose the location of, or any physical evidence of, the building. Shear457 speculated that the Boukolion was located to the near north east of the Acropolis in precise relation to other buildings: the Epilykeion (also referred to in Ath Pol 3.5), the Basileion, the Prytaneion (again also referred to in Ath Pol 3.5), the Thēseion and the

452 See Parker (2007) 398 with note 43, 461-462 and 469. 453 In the case of the Polemarcheion the Ath. Pol. identifies both the current and previous name of the building. 454 There may of course be an unstated fact that was common knowledge. 455 Suda, s.v. ἄξρσλ. Bekkeri (1814) Vol 1, 449 line19 makes the buildings proximate rather than contiguous. 456 Plutarch, Moralia 12.42: Γαμικά παπαγγέλματα - Conjugalia praecepta. 457 See the map in Shear (1992) 226. 105

Anakeion.458 The Basileion is referred to by Pollux459 who also asserts that that building was located next to the Boukolion and it was where the Phylobasileis (the so called four tribal kings) held their meetings. Athenaeus reports Kratēs of Mallos as asserting in a context referring to the annual βαζηιεύο and the Boukolion that there was a Parasition in Athens.460

Subject to what is said below about the Prytaneion, archaeology has not located the Boukolion, or the other buildings just mentioned, or any physical remains of them.461 Shear‘s location has its foundation in the discovery of a Hellenistic decree on marble bearing an order that the inscription be set up ―in the sanctuary of Aglauros‖. The inscription was found in association with its original in situ base and accordingly the inscription is considered proof of the location of the sanctuary of Aglauros below the eastern end of the Acropolis. The sanctuary (or temenos) of Aglauros is mentioned by Pausanias462 who locates it ―above‖ the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi which has come to be referred to as the Anakeion: ὑπὲξ δὲ η῵λ Γηνζθνύξσλ ηὸ ἱεξὸλ Ἀγιαύξνπ ηέκελόο ἐζηηλ. Pausanias goes on to state463 that πιεζίνλ δὲ πξπηαλεῖόλ ἐζηηλ, ἐλ ᾧ λόκνη ηε νἱ ΢όισλόο εἰζη γεγξακκέλνη and: ἔζηη δὲ ὁδὸο ἀπὸ ηνῦ πξπηαλείνπ θαινπκέλε Σξίπνδεο.464 Shear guessed the location of the Anakeion to have been on the modern site of the Anaphiotika district on North East slope of the Acropolis, and given that the modern Tripods Street corresponds closely with the ancient ὁδὸο Σξίπνδεο, Shear located the Prytaneion accordingly.

In the more recent work of Schmalz465 the Prytaneion is located ―in the peristyle complex beneath Agia Aikaterini Square, near the ancient Street of the Tripods and the Monument of

458 Compare the map in Shear (1992) 226 with the map in Rhodes (1992) 764 which shows the Shine of Aglauros on the North West side of the Acropolis, roughly in the location where prior to the 1980s it was widely believed to have been located. For a perspective of the changing views it is interesting to compare these maps in turn with that in Oikonomides (1964) xx and the maps in Schmalz (2006). 459 Pollux 8.3. 460 Athenaeus 6.235D. Pollux 6.35, also refers to a law of the βαζηιεύο asserting that that law disclosed the existence of a building at Athens called the ‗parasition‘. 461 Although a fifth-century boundary stone of the Anakeion is thought to have been discovered: IG I31052. See Meritt (1939) 48 no. 14, and Lalonde, Langdon and Walbank (1991) H5. 462 Pausanias, 1.18.2. 463 Pausanias, 1.18.3. 464 Pausanias, 1.20.1. The shrine is also mentioned by Polyaenus, 1.21.2 although he refers to it as ἱεξὸλ η῅ο Ἀγξύινπ. 465 Schmalz (2006) 33–81. 106

Lysicratēs in the modern Plaka.‖466 Schmalz supports his thesis by reference to Pausanias (obviously drawing different conclusions from Shear), and to topographical and archaeological evidence. He observes furthermore that the neighbourhood of the site he proposes being very near to the Sanctuary and Theatre of Dionysos, ―the area would have been an eminently logical location for the Boukolion of the Basileus.‖467 Hence:

―We should therefore at least entertain the possibility that ancient Lysicratēs Square was the location of such early public offices as the Boukolion, the Basileion, the Prytaneion, and the neighbouring Sanctuary and Theatre of Dionysos.‖468

The investigations of Shear, Schmalz and others469 have not conclusively located the Boukolion, or any remains of it. However, there is enough in the literary and archaeological record as indicated above to provide reasonable confidence that a building of that name did exist and that therefore there can be some confidence that the assertions about it in the Ath. Pol. are reliable, and that the building and whatever went on there were ‗ancient‘ to the author of the Ath. Pol.

As to the Ath. Pol.‘s reference to the ‗marriage‘ of Dionysos and the wife of the βαζηιεύο it is claimed that there are artistic references to it. There are several vases in respect of which it has been argued that the marriage is or may be recalled, albeit that in at least two of the cases the marriage is, if referred to at all, recalled by parody.470 The identification of these vases as references to the marriage of Dionysos and the wife of the βαζηιεύο is controversial.471

The next specific reference in the Ath. Pol. to the βαζηιεύο in respect of connection of him with rites is Chapter 57.1. Thus, the βαζηιεύο had duties in respect to the Mysteries, the Lēnaion Dionysia, the torch races and the ancestral sacrifices:

466 Schmalz (2006) 33. 467 Schmalz (2006) 65. 468 Schmalz (2006) 76. 469 Schmalz (2006) gives a full bibliography. 470 See Ackermann and Gisler (1981-1997) Volume iii (2) 491–492. 471 See Humphreys (2004) 224 and note 6. The vases in the context of the Lēnaion Dionysia are detailed and discussed in Deubner (1956) 100-123, and in Simon (1963). For polemical discussion see, for example, Pickard- Cambridge (1968) 10-12 and Parke (1977) 110–112, 118–119. The larger category of Lēnaia vases that are said to depict Dionysos as a ‗head on a stick‘ is discussed in some detail with reference to the ‗marriage‘ to Dionysos by, for example, Burkert (1983a) 230-238 (and references). 107

ὁ δὲ βαζηιεὺο πξ῵ηνλ κὲλ κπζηεξίσλ ἐπηκειεῖηαη . . . ἔπεηηα Γηνλπζίσλ η῵λ ἐπὶ Λελαίῳ· ηαῦηα ὅ . . . ηίζεζη δὲ θαὶ ηνὺο η῵λ ιακπάδσλ ἀγ῵λαο ἅπαληαο· ὡο δ‘ ἔπνο εἰπεῖλ θαὶ ηὰο παηξίνπο ζπζίαο δηνηθεῖ νὗηνο πάζαο.472

It is plain that where in the chapters of the Ath. Pol. following chapter 3 the author deals specifically with the responsibilities of the βαζηιεύο, he is not in any systematic way, or at all, attempting to isolate the responsibilities that were ancestral in the terms of chapter 3.3 where the Ath. Pol. refers to the πάηξηνη ζπζίαη. There is even some circularity combined with ambiguity; hence, ὡο δ‘ ἔπνο εἰπεῖλ. What were the rites that were ancestral as opposed to those that were not?

The ritual marriage of the wife of the βαζηιεύο with Dionysos is the only specifically identifiable case in respect of which it can be asserted that the author of the Ath. Pol. considered the rite to be ancestral, or at least in respect of which it can be asserted that it was a rite contemporaneous with ‗ancestral rites‘.473 If he can be believed, Apollodoros as the presumed author of Against Neaira474 is arguably corroborative of the Ath. Pol.‘s elliptical reference to this ‗marriage‘ rite in terms of the rite being very ancient.475

The Speech asserts that the ritual marriage was performed at Limnai in Athens in the month of Anthestērion (February/March) each year in honour of Dionysos.476 Against Neaira at 59.73

472 cf. Pollux, 8.90, and IG II2 2130 (c. A.D. 192-3): Testimonia in relation to the Lēnaion Dionysia are collected in Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 27. 473 The ‗marriage‘ to Dionysos is often referred to in the modern literature as the ‗sacred marriage‘; even expressly as ‗ἱεξνο γάκνο‘. This is not attested. cf. the ritual celebration of the marriage of Zeus and Hera, for which ἱεξνο γάκνο is attested, thus, Chaniotis, et al., SEG xxxiii 147.32; Edmonds (1957-1961) Volume IIIB, 678-679, regarding Menander fragment 320, and 1193 line 255 regarding gods and marriage; cf. Θενγάκηα in a scholion on Hesiod, Works and Days, 783-4. 474 It was never generally regarded, even by ancient scholars, as being a work of Demosthenes. See Blass (1893); Kirk (1895): Pearson (1966) and Trevett (1992) 50-76. 475 It needs to be emphasized that the Ath. Pol.‘s reference is only elliptical and that in terms of the issue of chronology the Ath. Pol.‘s reference is by no means unambiguous. 476 Against Neaira, 59.76 (all references and quotations hereinafter are from the Loeb edition). Both the date and location of Limnai are unknown: see Kapparis (1999) 335-336. If, as alleged in the Ath. Pol., the marriage took place in the Boukolion, as the location of the Boukolion is not certain it remains possible that the Boukolion was in Limnai. That it was in Limnai was at least at one time considered a certainty: ―That the Bucoleum must be on the agora, and that the marriage took place in Limaean-Lenaean territory, have long been accepted.‖ Pikard (1891) 80. See Wycherley (1965) and for a bibliography of ancient sources see Burkert (1983a) 215 and note 9. See also Kolb (1981) 29-31 who argues that the Lēnaion was near the location of the Stoa Basileios. For a variety of reasons, most of them dealt with in the review of Kolb by Seaford, this proposition is highly unlikely: Seaford (1983) 288- 289. 108

says of Phanō that she was given to Dionysos as bride (ἐμεδόζε δὲ ηῶ Γηνλύζῳ γπλή) and the author of the Ath. Pol. refers to the union and marriage to Dionysos (ἡ ζύκκεημηο . . . ηῶ Γηνλύζῳ θαὶ ὁ γάκνο).477 The marriage is also attested by Hesychius .478

Against Neaira purports to be a prosecution speech prepared for what may or may not have been an actual trial. The formal charge described in the Speech is that Neaira had broken the law by being an alien women living with a citizen. As the Speech develops it becomes apparent that the charge includes the claim that Neaira was a prostitute so notorious and villainous that she was a threat to the state. The document is not proof of anything at all let alone proof of Neaira‘s actual guilt or innocence.479 As evidence not of what it asserts about the parties who are its subject matter, but as evidence of contemporaneous social conditions and attitudes, it may have some value. However, even for that purpose it has to be read subject to the problems referred to in the Introduction to the present work, problems which it shares with all the forensic speeches.480 In addition to those reservations there are five additional reservations.

The first of the five additional reservations requires it to be possible to conclude that it is more probable than not that:

(A) each of the following facts alleged in the Speech would have been on the whole believed to be true by the people of Athens at the time of the speech, had the facts been presented to the people:481

 the office of βαζηιεύο had its origins in the ancestral kingship of Athens under which the king performed the sacrifices, save for some especially sacred rites which were performed by the wife of the βαζηιεύο, (59.74);

 the ancestral kings were perpetually pre-eminent or superior because of their being autochthonous (59.74);482

477 Ath. Pol. 3.5. 478 Hesychius, s.v., marriage of Dionysos: η῅ο ηνῦ βαζηιέσο γπλαηθὸο θαὶ ζενῦ γίλεηαη γάκνο. 479 Pace Debra Hamel (2003) who felt she could conclude that Apollodoros had a weak case. 480 See pp. 17-18 above. 481 That is, not just the male citizenry who served on juries. It is necessary to come to a conclusion about what the Athenians as a whole believed about the ritual marriage at Limnai. 482 As mentioned at p. 87 above. 109

 the performance by the wife of the βαζηιεύο of some especially sacred rites was to be expected by the fact that she was βαζίιηλλα;483

 upon the synoikismos effected by Theseus the βαζηιεύο was elected from pre-selected candidates;484

and

(B) that the following facts were true:

 the wife of the βαζηιεύο was required by law to be of Athenian birth and upon marriage to the βαζηιεύο to be a virgin (59.75);

 the law with respect to the wife of the βαζηιεύο was inscribed on stone and the stone was set up in the sanctuary of Dionysos at Limnai where it could still be seen, even though only barely (59.76);

 the sanctuary of Dionysos at Limnai was opened only once each year on the 12th of Anthestērion (February/March) (59.76);485

and

(C) that if the people of Athens at the time of the speech were presented with the following facts, and the people believed the facts to be true:

 Phanō (the daughter of Neaira) on behalf of Athens:

o performed sacrifices (so sacred as not permitted to be named) and administered the oath to their presiding priestesses (59.73 and 79);

o saw and performed religious rites (so sacred as not permitted to be named or described) (59.73 and 79);

o participated in a ritual marriage to Dionysos (59.74);

483 On the problems associated with the word ‗βαζίιηλλα‘ see p. 116 note 512 below. 484 See Kapparis (1999) 344 and references in relation to difficulties with this assertion by Apollodorus. 485 Parker (2007) 291 argues that Apollodoros exaggerated, and that the sanctuary was open for the three days of the Anthestēria. The implication of Parker‘s argument is that the Athenians did not know much about the ritual and that Apollodoros could get away with the exaggeration, or that Apollodoros was naïve and thought that he could get away with it. 110

(D) the people of Athens at the time of the speech would on the whole have agreed with the following opinions and sentiments expressed in the Speech:

 the sanctuary of Dionysos at Limnai was most ancient and most sacred (59.76-77);

 the rites preformed by the wife of the βαζηιεύο with respect to Dionysos were sacred (59.77);

and then also

(E) the people of Athens at the time of the speech would on the whole have agreed with the following opinions and sentiments expressed in the Speech:

 the law with respect to the wife of the βαζηιεύο which was set up in the sanctuary of Dionysos at Limnai testified to the piety of the people to the god Dionysos and to their desire that only a few would have knowledge of the aforesaid inscription (59.76);

We cannot know for sure if the facts set out under (B) above were in fact true, and in all likelihood we shall never know if the facts referred to in (C) were true or false. It does not matter of course whether the facts listed under (C) were true or false; what matters is what would have been the response of the people (not just the male citizens, but also the women, the metics, the emancipated slaves and slaves) if they were presented with such facts and believed them to be true.

Although we have some corroboration in other sources of some of the facts in (A) and (B) (those which are to do with what the people believed about the historical past of the Athenians), on the whole we have to rely on supposition. It may thus be supposed that because the facts and the existence of the beliefs seem to be of a nature that would have been in the public domain at the date of the Speech, it is less likely that they would have been misrepresented or invented in the speech. However, we have to allow for the possibility of invention and distortion by the public domain itself. Apollodoros may have been exploiting widely held misconceptions about what went on in the annual ‗marriage‘ ritual, when and where it occurred, and how ancient the ritual was. But we have no grounds for thinking there 111

were such misconceptions, although it has to be noted that if Apollodoros is to be taken to assert that the ritual marriage took place in the sanctuary of Dionysos at Limnai, what is to be made of the Ath. Pol.‘s assertion (Ath. Pol.3.3) that it took place in the Boukolion? As to when it occurred, Against Neaira cannot necessarily be said to assert that it occurred on the 12th of Anthestērion.486

In any event, the author of the Speech could not have thought that he could easily present a false or distorted version of what the people believed about the historical past of the Athenians, and the facts under (B), to hundreds of citizen jurymen and, accordingly, we have reasonable grounds to believe that it is more probable than not that the alleged historical beliefs would have in general been held at least by the male citizenry, and that the facts under (B) were probably true.

Much the same argument can apply to the items of opinion and sentiment listed under (E). Opinion and sentiment concerning matters of public interest are less easy to miscalculate than matters that are of essentially private fact. The author of the Speech will have been able to assess the likely response of male citizens to the matters referred to because they are to do with public attitudes towards matters of public interest.

The four remaining reservations each concern opinion and sentiment.

Thus, opinion and sentiment, unlike established facts, can vary both in substance and degree and we cannot know that the author of the Speech read public opinion and sentiment correctly, or that if he did, that these had not changed before or after the Speech. We do not know that the perceptions that we wish to gauge through the Speech in order to know something about the ritual marriage were not short lived perceptions; mere aberrations. We cannot necessarily generalize from the Speech so to say that whatever it says to us that we think is reliable was always so, and was so for the people as a whole, and not just the jurors.

There is thus the issue of whether we can assume that the opinion and sentiment of male citizens in regard to beliefs concerning the gods and ritual practice did not in general differ materially from that of the people as a whole. The assumption does not seem unreasonable.

486 There are two altars mentioned in the relevant passages of Against Neaira but they are not necessarily the same altar. See Parker (2007) 304, note 60. 112

Next, the Speech actually states that the detail in the Speech about the alleged ritual marriage is given to enable the jurors to know how important, sacred and ancient the rites were.487 This suggests that knowledge of the ritual was not widespread. Some secrecy is expressed to be associated with the ritual in that the law in relation to the wife of the βαζηιεύο was intended to be known only by a few, and Apollodoros purported to be guarded as to what evidence he could adduce about what went on.488

Finally, it should be considered that it is an irony, given the strident terms in which the Speech excoriates adulterous women, that the ritual marriage is prima facie a ritual adultery, indeed, the more perfect the wife of the βαζηιεύο the more perfect the adultery.489 Is the Speech incredible because it portrays a seemingly perverse and irrational ritual immersed in what appear to be moral ambiguities? However, moral ambiguities are at the centre of a great many theological constructs, not least those of Christianity, where, for instance, the doctrines of the Annunciation and Incarnation are events whose elements also impinge on intimate connection of human and divine. The ontological and moral issues notwithstanding, they are events considered a proper subject of good public taste, and ones worthy of solemn annual remembrance.

For the present it can be asserted that Against Neaira can, subject to the reservations set out above, be relied on to establish the existence in Athens in the 4th century of an annual rite of ‗marriage‘ by the wife of the βαζηιεύο to Dionysos conforming, at least in broad outline, to the details given in the ‗speech. But how sacred, and how old, was the rite? These questions are not necessarily unrelated. Plato arguably equates most sacred with age and the equation is intuitively appealing.490

487 Against Neaira, 59.74-78. See further below p. 255. 488 Against Neaira, 59.76. It is noteworthy in this context that Against Neaira is the only contemporaneous extant source for any detail about the ritual marriage and, like the Anthestēria, the ‗marriage‘ is not referred to in chapter 57 of the Ath. Pol. See pp. 234-235 below. 489 Much depends on how ζύκκεημηο is to be translated. For a range, compare the refined perspective of Kerényi (1976) 309-310 with the crude perspective of Deubner (1956) 100 referring to the use of ―geschlechtlicher Dinge‖. Note also Rhodes (1992) 104-105 approving Wilhelm‘s distinction between κεῖμηο (to be translated as ‗intercourse‘) and ζύκκεημηο to be translated as ‗the ceremonial meeting of the partners before marriage‘: Wilhelm (1974) 582-600. But if there was no ‗marriage‘ what was the point of the meeting? 490 Statesman, 290e. 113

Yet of all the gods in Athens thought fit for parody Dionysos seems to have been considered the fittest. Certainly, Aristophanes subjected Dionysos to extreme ridicule, and if Dionysos was the subject of a stock comic theme the inherent oddness of the ‗marriage‘ would have been even more difficult to pass off as sacred.491 In fact, one of the 5th century BCE vase paintings referred to above is a pornographic depiction of copulating equines and Deubner claims it depicts the ritual marriage, extremely weak though the claim is.492

The fact that rites allocated by the Ath. Pol. to the βαζηιεύο related to Dionysos does not in itself establish the rites as ancestral in the relevant sense. The Ath. Pol. at 56.3-4 assigns the Dionysia and the Great Dionysia to the archōn, and the Thargēlia,493 which implies that these rites were not ancestral, unless they are to be taken to be a residuum covered by the words ὡο δ‘ ἔπνο εἰπεῖλ in Ath. Pol. 57.1.

Whether or not Dionysos is as old as the Bronze Age,494 there is no clear evidence that he was firmly resident in Athens in any form any earlier than the middle of the 6th century. It was certainly once a firm view that Dionysos was introduced to Athens in 534 BCE, that being the year according to the Parian Marble that Thespis won a prize at the Dionysia.495 On this basis Feaver held that the ―celebrated ‗sacred marriage‘ of the basilinna, wife of the basileus, to ‗Dionysos‘ must have its origin at this time.‖496

However, in canvassing the considerable problems associated with the 534 BCE date, associated as they are with ―Hellenistic calculation‖ and the incorporation of Boiotian Eleutherai into Attica, Parker discussed the possibility of an even lower date for the invention of the City

491 See, in general, Parker (2007) 149-152. In relation to Aristophanes and sacred marriage see Anderson and Keith (2007) especially 323-324. Even Athena may have been ridiculed: see Anderson (2008) esp. 180-182 and notes. 492 p. 106 above; Ackermann and Gisler (1981-1997) No 826; and Deubner (1956) 120. 493 See Simon (1983) 107 where she claims that the Thargēlia and Pyanopsia must have been prior to the Bronze Age kings because the βαζηιεύο did not have a function in relation to them. This is discussed further at p. 273 below. 494 Burkert claimed the Anthestēria was over a thousand years old in Hellenistic times: Burkert (1983a) 213-214 referring at 213, note 3, to the identification of Dionysos in Linear B and citing, inter alios, Caskey who claims there was a shrine to Dionysos at Keos by the 6th century: Caskey (1963). See also Palmer (1961) 198-200 and id (1963) 125-128, Simon (1983) 289, and Humphreys (2004) 228-235. 495 Parian Marble A43FGrH239. See Adcock (1926) 67; Deubner (1956) 138-142; and Feaver (1957) 123-158; and for problems with the Parian Mable date see Scullion (2002) especially at 81 with note 4 and references. 496 Feaver (1957) 133. 114

Dionysia, taking the credit away from Peisistratos and giving it to the young democracy.497 Of course the date of the City Dionysia would not necessarily have coincided with the introduction of Dionysos into Athens, nor does Parker so argue. However, there is no reason in the serious problems associated with the 534 BCE date to disturb Feaver‘s conclusion as to when the ‗sacred marriage‘ started, especially when the date for the City Dionysia is being dramatically lowered.498 In short, it is not known that there was a sacred marriage ritual in Athens featuring Dionysos before the latter part of the 6th century, and such evidence that there is in regard to the inception of the ritual in Athens leaves it open to argue for an even lower date.

It is also necessary to distinguish the Anthestēria from Dionysos. Burkert acknowledges that Dionysos could be a secondary accretion.499 The Anthestēria and the ‗sacred marriage‘ need also to be distinguished. It is disputed that the ‗marriage‘ was part of the Anthestēria, 500 and since it is not attested anywhere else in Greece it does not appear to have been a stock part of that festival. That is to say the date of the Anthestēria does not necessarily date the ‗marriage ritual‘.

In scholarship referring to the Spring Festival of the Near East and its associated sacred marriage the Athenian ritual involving the annual βαζηιεύο is not infrequently also mentioned.501 But there are obvious problems in the suggestion that the Athenian ritual had anything to do with Near Eastern rites. To begin with, the annual βαζηιεύο was not a monarch and, as discussed above,502 there is no satisfactory explanation for the origins of the office that would have the βαζηιεύο a vestigial survivor of a theocratic monarchy whose narrative gave a foundation for such a ritual. Secondly, in what conceivable way could his wife have been regarded as the Great Mother or, for that matter, a stand-in for any goddess? Thirdly, it is not a

497 Parker (1996) 92-96. And see Anderson (2003) 178-184 and references therein who argues persuasively for a turn of the 5th century date for the City Dionysia, but cf. Humphreys (2004) 231 note 24, Anderson not cited, relying on Parker: ―we do not have any basis at present for choosing between a Peisistratid and Kleisthenic date‖. 498 See Humphreys (2004) 231 note 24. 499 Burkert (1983a) 213-214. 500 It is not universally accepted that the ritual marriage was connected with the Anthestēria. See Hamilton (1992) 55-56, and references therein, in particular, Peirce (1984) 147-149. 501 For example, Smith (1958) 64 reflecting on the origins of the rite in Athens: ―The rite of the marriage of the basilinna to Dionysos at Athens is not likely to have been due to Babylonian influence, but it was some very ancient rite connected with kingship‖. It should be noted also that Pseudo Hesiod‘s Ἠνῖαη or Catalogue of Women suggests a strong tradition in Greek legend of sexual relations between mortal women with gods. 502 pp. 92ff. 115

marriage; it is more in the nature of ‗a one-night stand‘. It has even been argued that it fits better, though uneasily, into the mythological category of god/goddess rape, or god/mortal rape.503 The prima facie pointlessness of the ritual has led to a variety of irreconcilable speculations as to its meaning.

Thus, Harrison drew on zoomorphic myth:

―In a place called the cattle shed the Queen Archon was married to Dionysos. The conjecture lies near to hand that in bygone days there was a marriage to a sacred bull. We are reminded that the worshipper of Sabazios was said to 'herd' the god.‖504

We do not know if Harrison thought that in the ritual a bull literally represented Dionysos.505

Burkert refers to the wife of the βαζηιεύο as ―the queen‖ who ―was given to the god as his bride‖.506 But this is not the goddess who in relation to the spring festival is the initiator. Moreover, Dionysos‘ bride is to be perceived as a potential victim. Thus, Dionysos is

―appeased by being given a woman; indeed he is revitalized in the embrace and obtains new regenerative powers . . . Here too of course, the ‗sacred‘ in the sacred marriage carries the greatest danger: just as the woman can revive her dead partner, he can kill the woman.‖507

Evans‘ explanation: ―[t]his solemn sexual union represented the joining of the Athenian political community with the vegetation god whose power made their lives sweeter, more harmonious, and more productive‖508 echoes a view that sees in the marriage a ritual celebrated ―on behalf of the city‖. Thus, for Munn the βαζηιεύο and/or his wife, in the context of the rite, represented priestly or public officialdom.509

503 cf. Avagianou (1991) 194-195 and in general 177-202. 504 Harrison (1903) 536. 505 On the term boukolos in the Dionysian mysteries and boukoloi in Egyptian heroic narratives, and a scholion to the Iliad, see Humphries (2004) 253 note 74. 506 Burkert (1983) 233. 507 Burkert (1983) 235. 508 Evans (2010) 178. cf. Carlier (1984) 334-335 : ―L'aspect politique de la cérémonie reste cependant important: l'union de la reine et du dieu symbolise l‘union de la cité et du dieu.‖ 509 Munn (2006) 39. 116

Daraki held the Athenian βαζηιεύο had an obligation, a ―responsabilité royale‖, to offer his wife to Dionysos on behalf of the city.510 Should we thus see the annual rite as an offering to Dionysos in the same way as the offering of the peplos was described by Sourvinou-Inwood to express ―the relationship of reciprocity between the polis and all the gods, the gods who alone guaranteed the city‘s continued existence and prosperity‖?511 Decades ago Otto dismissed such a perspective (and also the spring festival rationale) out of hand as arbitrary and meaningless, but describing Dionysus as:

―the confidant of women, he, whose majesty is complete in the intoxicated gaze of the most beautiful of women, claims the queen in Athens, when he comes.‖512

The diversity of opinion in the scholarship is due not least to the fact that it is not known in detail what the ritual entailed, including its broader narrative such as whether Dionysos arrived by sea or, from the ground beneath the Boukolion. Was the ritual about the underworld and death, or about salvation and renewal, or about some combination of diverse elements?513 Whatever the case it is difficult not to consider that the so-called ‗sacred marriage‘ between the wife of the βαζηιεύο and Dionysos was foreign in Athens (that it was as bizarre to the Athenians as it is capable of seeming to us), just as no similar rite is attested for anywhere else in contemporaneous Greece.

As for any direct role in the rite of the annual βαζηιεύο, Guthrie, having described the annual βαζηιεύο as ―the official religious leader of the city‖, asserted that the rite was ―under the direction of the King-Archon‖. But if these facts were true Apollodoros might be expected to

510 Daraki (1985) 78. 511 Sourvinou-Inwood (2011) 270. 512 Otto (1965) 84-85. Compare Otto‘s ―most beautiful of women‖ with Humphries (2004) 270 note 119 who refers to the ―basilinna‖ with the gerarai as ―the leading matrons‖ of Athens. The wife of the βαζηιεύο is referred to 59.74 as the βαζίιηλλα. Σhus: ηὰο δὲ ζπζίαο ἁπάζαο ὁ βαζηιεὺο ἔζπε, θαὶ ηὰο ζεκλνηάηαο θαὶ ἀξξήηνπο ἡ γπλὴ αὐηνῦ ἐπνίεη, εἰθόησο, βαζίιηλλα νὖζα. The reference is clearly to the ancestral βαζηιεύο and the use of the irregular βαζίιηλλα (assuming it is correct in the editions of Speech that use it) is perhaps explained by that. Polyaenus 8.90 and Phrynichus (William G. Rutherford edition, 202-203) use βαζίιηζζα but βαζίιηζζα may be anachronistic with respect to Classical Athens. Macurdy (1928) argues that neither βαζίιηλλα nor βαζίιηζζα th would have been the title of the wife of the βαζηιεὺο before the 4 century BCE, however, refer again to the Introduction p. 12 above. See also Carlier (1984) 325 note 3, and Kapparis (1999) 333. 513 Burkert (1983a) 234 refers in the context of the ritual to ―a subterranean ‗house‘‖ suggesting the Boukolion or part of it was subterranean, and at loc. cit. 235 he suggests the possibility that the ―the sacramental drinking on the day of the Choes symbolized a bloody sacrifice.‖ cf. Guthrie (1955) 177 and Simon (1983) 92-99. 117

have so submitted, as he would also if, in accordance with Burkert (using the phrase ―most likely‖), it was the annual βαζηιεύο who played Dionysus in the ritual marriage.514

The Lēnaia fell within a sequence of annual Dionysiac festivals over winter: the Rural Dionysia (ηὰ θαη‘ἀγξνπο Γηνλύζηα),516 Lēnaia, Anthestēria, and City (or Great) Dionysia (Γηνλύζηα ηὰ ἀζηηθά/ Γηνλύζηα ηἀ ἐλ ἄζηεη/ Γηνλύζηα ηἀ κεγάια).517 They were all to do with Dionysos; the Rural Dionysia, Lēnaia, and City Dionysia being dramatic festivals. No specific role in the Lēnaia is identified in the extant sources for the βαζηιεύο unlike for the drinking contest at the Anthestēria in respect of which the βαζηιεύο is said to have had the care, including the role of presenting the prize wine sack to the victor.518 But the Ath. Pol. does not expressly say that the βαζηιεύο had responsibility in respect of the Anthestēria. This does not mean that the Anthestēria was not ancestral in the relevant sense; the author of the Ath. Pol. may simply have overlooked it, or, given that the Ath. Pol. post-dates both Aristophanes and Thucydides by the better part of a century, it may be that there had been a change in administrative arrangements by the date of the Ath. Pol. It is nonetheless not sufficient to adjudge the Anthestēria ‗old‘ simply because of the express association of the βαζηιεύο with that festival in circumstances where the evidence of a necessary association of the βαζηιεύο with ‗old‘ is highly contentious in light of the problems now apparent in relation to the origin of the office.

There is evidence also that the Anthestēria may have been called the ‗older‘ Dionysia.519 However, in respect of the Lēnaia, there are connections, albeit slender, through Eleusis, with the Mysteries. Thus, there is evidence that at the Lēnaia, Dionysos was invoked as Iakkhos,520

514 Guthrie (1955) 177; Burkert (1983a) 234 . 515 The name could derive from ιελνί for wine-presses, or ι῅λαη meaning maenads: discussed in Pickard- Cambridge (1968) 29-30. 516 Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 42. 517 Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 57, notes 1 and 2. 518 Aristophanes, Acharnians 1222-1224 and scholion on Acharnians 1224-5: πνῦ ‘ζηηλ ὁ βαζηιεύο; δεινῖ ὡο ἄξα ηὴλ ἐπηκέιεηαλ ὁ βαζηιεὺο εἶρε η῅ο ἁκίιιεο ηνῦ ρνὸο θαὶ ηὸ ἆζινλ ἐδίδνπ ηῶ ληθήζαληη, ηὸλ ἀζθόλ. 519 Thucydides, 2.15.4 and see Hunt and Grenfell (1908) Volume 6, 124, column 10, relying on Thucydides. 520 Scholion on Aristophanes, Frogs, 479c at the words θάιεη ζεόλ. 118

and evidence also that the Eleusinian epistatai made a sacrifice at the Lēnaia.521 However, whether these facts explain the express mention in 57.1 of the Ath. Pol. of these two festivals, and only these, is conjectural. More important perhaps for present purposes is, again, the use of the participation of the βαζηιεύο as corroborative of an argument for the age of the festival.522

Pickard-Cambridge argues, based on the invocation of Iakkhos as the son of Semele (see above), for the possibility of a very early date for the Lēnaia in Athens, and at least before the Ionian migrations. But the notion of the Ionian migrations is now in considerable doubt, and in any event, as Pickard-Cambridge acknowledged ―[t]here is much that is uncertain here.‖523

(d) The Eleusinian Mysteries524

A number of scholars have argued that the Mysteries were under the control of the primordial Athenian monarchy, an argument purporting to be based on 3.3 of the Ath. Pol. Thus, Padgug, referring to the statement quoted above:525

―this statement appears to be correct. The Basileus handled elements of the celebration which are clearly archaic, while the Archon Eponymous handled those aspects which are known to have been relatively late additions.‖526

However, it is not enough simply to refer to elements as ‗clearly archaic‘. What is required, if that ascription is to be maintained, is to prove in addition that those elements pre-dated the end of the alleged monarchy (a monarchy incidentally which Padgug expressly places prior to the end of the Dark Ages). There is no such proof available. Besides, the premise of the argument is unsound. The Ath. Pol. seems to be referring to later things, not later additions to the ancestral things. If the ancestral rites are to be divided into age related elements the ground is shifted even further away from clarity, that is, we have to start thinking of the non-ancestral parts of otherwise ancestral rites—rites that we cannot safely identify in the first place. This

521 2 IG II 1672 (329-328 BCE) at lines 182-5. But note that in the same inscription at line 204 the epistatai also participated at the Choes thus weakening the idea of a special connection between the Lēnaia and the Mysteries. 522 See Wilamowitz (1956) 75. cf. Deubner (1958) 124-5. 523 Pickard-Cambridge (1988) 35 and note 3. 524 See Mylonas (1961), although in significant respects Mylonas‘ conclusions are now disputed; Kevin Clinton: principally, Clinton (1974), (1980) and (2005); the bibliography, and an illuminating discussion, in Evans (2002) 227-254; Anderson (2003) 185-194 with references; and Parker (2007), especially chapter 15. 525 p. 103. 526 Padgug (1972) 143 and see references there regarding the primordial monarchy and the mysteries. 119

issue also draws attention to another curious aspect of the whole notion of the βαζηιεύο as the jealous possessor of jurisdiction over the πάηξηνη. The date of the Mysteries with respect to Athens is inevitably mixed with the date of Athenian jurisdiction with respect to Eleusis.527 However, even if Eleusis was part of Athens from Mycenenian times, the focus is simply shifted to when the Mysteries began in Eleusis. Nor does the matter end there. It does not necessarily follow that Athenian control of the Mysteries would have coincided with the inception of the rite in Eleusis.

Those arguing for an early date for the Mysteries in Athens refer to the construction not later than the mid 6th century of the Eleusinion in Athens. The argument runs that this development shows that control of the Mysteries by Athens was well established by the mid 6th century. Admittedly, it is the case that archaeological evidence associated with the site of the Eleusinion suggests there were cult practices in Athens by the 7th century, but we do not know what they were, and even if we stretch the argument and say that there was a cult of Demeter in Athens by the 7th century, we do not have enough to say that the office of βαζηιεύο, if it existed at that time, had anything to do with it. Besides, even at the time of the Ath. Pol., partial control of the Mysteries remained with the Eleusinian Kērykes and Eumolpidai families. If this is taken to mean that Athens never had full control of the Mysteries, the construction of the Eleusinion can be seen as evidence that Athens, not having control, and knowing the potency of the cult, decided to give itself its own part to play?528

Be that as it may, there is inscriptional evidence that tends to suggest that the festival of the Mysteries, in the form of the proceedings that involved the intimate connection of Athens with Eleusis, was established by the early 5th century. The evidence is hardly overwhelming, the inscriptions are far more in the nature of space than substance, and the fact that they were found in the Eleusinion does not necessarily mean they belonged there.529 However, there is also the fact that arguably, by reference to date and form of construction, renovations at Eleusis

527 Considered further at pp. 199-200 below. The literature for the issue so far as it concerns the date of the Mysteries is summarized in Miles (1998) 21, note 33. 528 See Padgug (1972) 145 and references. 529 IG 13 231, c.510-500, and IG 13 232, c.510-480, laws found in the Eleusinion concerning the festival. See Jeffery (1948) 86-111. 120

and at the Eleusinion towards the end of the 6th century seem to have been coordinated.530 How early were the Mysteries in Athens?

Yet again, the βαζηιεύο is called on to supply the date:

―The most important evidence for a pre-Solonian date [for the Mysteries in Athens] is the role of the archon basileus, who had charge of the administration of the Mysteries and of ancestral sacrifices (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 57.1-2), and a passage in Andokides (1.111) noting that according to Solonian law, the Boule met in the Eleusinion after the Mysteries.‖531

The unstated assumptions here are that the ancestral sacrifices must, by reason of the wording of chapters 3.3 and 57.1 of the Ath. Pol., at least precede Solon (in fact they would have to precede Draco), and that the Solonian law which Andokides referred to was in fact Solonian, and not simply called Solonian either in the knowledge that it was not so, or mistakenly. Neither assumption can be proved wrong; on the other hand neither of them is even near indisputably correct.

The evidence, and the lack of it, is such that Anderson is able to argue on a variety of grounds that the Mysteries were a mid 6th century Athenian invention.532 And Sourvinou-Inwood acknowledged that there was no pre 6th century evidence of the Mysteries at Eleusis itself.533

In short, there is no evidence that the Mysteries were in the class of Athenian πάηξηνη, and good arguments can be made that they were not. The role of the βαζηιεύο in relation to the Mysteries is discussed further below,534 it suffices for the present to note Carlier that at Eleusis itself ―le roi assiste aux cérémonies, mais son rôle est seulement de veiller à ce que personne ne commette de sacrilège.‖535 Again, even if Carlier is correct, what that limited role entailed, and how the βαζηιεύο preformed it, is not known. Nor would such a role necessarily require to be characterized as ‗religious‘.

530 Anderson (2003) 186-7. 531 Miles (1998) 21 note 33, and also 64. 532 Anderson (2006) 188-189. 533 Sourvinou-Inwood (1997) 136-137. See Sourvinou-Inwood (2011) 111-123 regarding foundation myths of the Mysteries. 534 pp. 248-251, 257-258. 535 Carlier (1984) 331. 121

(e) Artemis Agrotera and Enualios 536

The Ath. Pol. 58.1 allocates these rites to the polemarch. And it will be recalled that chapter 3.3 of the Ath. Pol. allows the polemarch to have some jurisdiction over ancestral rites. It is appropriate therefore to consider whether the rites referred to, Ἀξηέκηδη ηῆ ἀγξνηέξᾳ θαὶ ηῶ ἖λπαιίῳ, can be regarded as πάηξηνη.

Enualios (or Ares) can be disposed of quickly on the grounds that the context of the rite is unknown,537 although Simon seems to assume the context was the same as for Artemis.538

The rite in respect of Artemis Agrotera in its form adopted after Marathon was clearly not πάηξηνο. It involved a sacrifice of 500 goats to fulfil a promise (most inadequately, because there were to be as many goats as Persian dead) to Artemis Agrotera that goats would be sacrificed after the battle. The rite involved a procession in which the goats were led to a sanctuary of Artemis Agrotera near the Ilissos.539

There is nothing that we can connect to the βαζηιεύο in the nature of rites or things that might be associated with rites that can be dated earlier than the mid 6th century BCE. We have to doubt the basis in the orthodox notion of the Athenian ancestral monarchy of the association of that monarchy with religious responsibility. If the annual βαζηιεύο had a pre-eminent responsibility in respect of ‗religious matters‘, the Ath. Pol. gives us no better reason to believe that the source of that responsibility was the ancestral monarchy than that it was in some later development.

B The Role of Other Institutions

(a) The Areopagus Council

In some scholarship it has been argued that it was the Areopagus Council that was in effect pre- eminent in respect of ancestral rites, an argument taking its perspective from a view of the Areopagus as an especially ancient and venerable institution.540 However, Wallace argues that whilst there is sufficient evidence of a power belonging to the Areopagus of ―general

536 See, in general, Parke (1977) 54-55 and Simon (1983) 82-83. 537 Parker (2007) 398. 538 Simon(1983) 82. 539 Plutarch, Moralia 862A called the festival ραξηζηήξηα (thanksgiving). 540 Wilamowitz (1893) Volume 2, 188; Lipsius (1905-1915) 366-367; and Hignett (1952) 89-90. 122

surveillance‖ in respect of religion after 462 BCE there is not sufficient evidence in respect of any time prior to 462 BCE.541 An important part of Wallace‘s case is the role of the Areopagus in Against Neaira, the Areopagus there alleged by Apollodoros to have investigated the annual βαζηιεύο Theogenēs, and to have had a power to subject the βαζηιεύο to penal sanction.542

(b) The Phylobasileis543

The ‗judicial‘ role of the phylobasileis is referred to below.544 In regard to ritual and sacrifice a role for them is asserted by Pollux and Hesychius. Thus, Pollux in reference to them: κάιηζηα η῵λ θπι῵λ ἱεξ῵λ ἐπηκεινῦλην,545 and Hesychius: θπινβαζηιεῖο ἐθ η῵λ θπι῵λ αἱξεηνί, νἱ ηὰο θπζίαο ἐπηκεινῦληεο.546 Epigraphic evidence in the form of sacrfical calendars tends to support these assertions.547 There is no mention of the annual βαζηιεύο as being associated with the θπινβαζηιεῖο in respect of these activities, yet, although extant sacrificial calendars seem to include ἐπίζεηνη ἑνξηαί,548 it is reasonable to presume that they also record πάηξηνη ζπζίαη.

In relation to ‗religion‘ the role of the Areopagus, and the Phylobasileis, is not clear, whether considered relative to the annual βαζηιεύο, or absolutely. In any event, there is a more general problem in the discussion of the annual βαζηιεύο in connection with religion: is the word ‗religion‘ anachronistic in relation to ancient Athens?

C The Ancestral Monarchy and Religion

(a) Defining religion

―Anyone trying to understand and interpret Greek religion faces enormous problems . . . we have virtually no discussion by any ancient writer of why temples were built in the form they were, why animals were sacrificed in the way they were, or why certain objects were dedicated to the gods and not others.

541 Wallace (1989) 106-112 and references. 542 Demosthenes (Apollodoros) 59.79-83. 543 See in general Carlier (1984) 353-357 and references, in particular Dow (1960). 544 pp. 156, 235. 545 Pollux, 8.3. 546 Hesychius s.v. θπινβαζηιεῖο. 547 See Carlier (1984) 355-359 and references. 548 Pace Rosivach (1994) 47 submitting that the ‗Calendar of Nikomakhos‘ was a ―recodification of the polis‘ ‗ancestral sacrifices‘‖. See evidence in Lambert (2002). 123

Any attempt to make sense of all this information must impose a framework from the outside.‖ 549

It is the imposition of a modern framework that creates a sense of the surreal in relation to discussion of ancient Greek religion.

It seems that a good many of the scholarly translators have committed themselves to a policy that if the Greek refers to something concerning the gods, ηὰ η῵λ ζε῵λ, in general the Greek may be rendered in translation as a reference to religion, or the religious. Yet it is plain that a definition of religion as ‗something to do with the gods‘ is vague and amorphous, and useless for the purpose of meaningful discourse.550 If we are to adopt that definition it is hardly edifying, for instance, to state of the βαζηιεύο that he inherited the religious prerogatives of the ancestral kings. If asked what the substance of those prerogatives was, our answer would be ‗something to do with the gods‘. We would have no better answer to give.

What K. T. Preuss‘ called the ‗Urdummheit‘ or age of ‗Primal Stupidity‘, Gilbert Murray called the primitive Euêtheia, or Age of Innocence. Murray was thus more forgiving of those who had not progressed to that following stage of ‗religion‘ which he called the stage of the ‗great Olympian gods‘.551 But what sort of ‗religion‘ do these gods incarnate? Murray seemed to think it rather thin:

―There is not much faith in these gods, as they appear to us in the Homeric Poems, and not much respect, except perhaps for Apollo and Athena and Poseidon. The buccaneer kings of the Heroic Age, cut loose from all local and tribal pieties, intent only on personal gain and glory, were not the people to build up a powerful religious faith. They left that, as they left agriculture and handwork, to the nameless common folk. And it was not likely that the bards of

549 Osborne (1987) 165. 550 Consider for example the definition of Jameson (1997) 171: ―Here it [Greek religion] will be understood as comprising the full range of symbolic conceptions and expressions, in word, in art, and in action, that engaged the supernatural.‖ For the challenges of the word religion to legal interpretation see Freeman (1982) and Gunn (2003). 551 Murray (2002/1912). The idea of an evolutionary progression in religious belief and practice that is clearly reflected in the title to Murray‘s book, and the contents of the book itself, are not undisputed: see Boer‘s attack on Murray‘s approach: Boer (1973) e.g. at 1: ―The rich diversity of the religious phenomena cannot be forced into a rigid chronological system.‖ 124

cultivated and scientific Ionia should waste much religious emotion on a system which was clearly meant more for romance than for the guiding of life.‖552

If Murray was right, and if the Homeric conception is a fair reflection of contemporaneous or near contemporaneous Athens, it is valid to query whether in the early 7th century, the traditional date for the inception of the annual office of βαζηιεύο, it makes sense to conceive of the need for such an office, if the office is to be held, as it is in the traditional view, to have been in its inception an office dedicated to the administration of religious affairs.

Whilst Gilbert Murray, expressly eschewed definition: ―I shall not start with any definition of Religion. Religion, like poetry and most other living things, cannot be defined‖553 he defined it implicitly as the relation between man and the unknown, or the ‗uncharted‘. The relationship is one of attitude

―not of the conscious intellect but of the whole being, using all its powers of sensitiveness, all its feeblest and most inarticulate feelers and tentacles, in an effort somehow to touch by these that which cannot be grasped by the definite senses or analysed by the conscious reason.‖554

This perception of religion diffuses it into other forms of mediation with the uncharted such as mathematics, and the visual and literary arts. The mediation‘s purpose is to produce explanation and understanding, but the Athenians, like just about everyone today, were more interested in practical outcomes. Besides explanation and understanding may not coincide. Consider in this regard Werner Heisenberg‘s description of relativity as ‗incomprehensible‘:

―I feel somewhat cheated by the logic of the new framework. You might even say that I have grasped the theory with my brain, but not yet with my heart.‖555

Thus, in popular Greek thought, the behaviour of the material world (organic and inorganic) was explained and understood as the action of the various gods and spirits, but the real interest

552 Murray (2002/1912) 55-56. For an overview of religion in Homer see Kearns (2011) who importantly notes that the narrative demands of the epic poems did not include, and can be expected to have precluded, explication of ‗religious‘ beliefs and practices. 553 Murray (2002/1912) 4. 554 Murray (2002/1912) 7. Nearly a century or so later the influential Pascal Boyer (2002) was approaching the subject in a similar way. 555 Heisenberg (1971) 29-30. 125

was in controlling divine action by appeasement and propitiation. It was just a case of deciding on and sticking to the appropriate rituals for each god. The priests knew the rules.556

The modern scientific world works in much the same way. The only difference is that causes of the behaviour of matter have been reduced to common categories. For names of gods we have names of forces and names of genes; for rituals we have mathematics and experimental protocols; and, for priests we have scientists and mathematicians. The underlying cognitive paradigms are fundamentally different but the object is in general the same557 — the achievement of specific outcomes: successful harvests, medical cures, success in war, and so on. The word ‗religion‘ may be no more appropriate to apply to the quotidian ritual routines of the Athenians, or their elaborate annual festival and cultic practices, than it is to apply it to the activities of modern science, unless stretched in scope, and beyond real analytical usefulness, in the way it is expressed by Gilbert Murray.

Moreover, the Athenian spiritual menu included an optional offering. Is ‗religion‘ to be defined to accommodate the principles and practices of xrēsmologoi; of manteis;558 of Orpheus initiators; of Plato‘s door to door pedlars of absolution and revenge; and of the practitioners of pharmakeia, and defixio? Each of these in their own way, whether as agents, or engaged in self-help, are attempting to work with and exercise control over the ‗uncharted‘ world, even if to achieve or fulfil contumelious or malevolent ends.559

The modern conception of religion marginalizes magic, voodoo, witchcraft, satanic cults, fortunetelling and the like as contemptible, or at best as idle pastimes; it is a conception profoundly incompatible with what appears to have been the relationship of the ancient Athenians to their gods. This is not to deny what Humphries calls ―the rich development in Greece of speculative theology‖,560 but her advocacy of a richer perception of what she calls ―Greek religion‖ as opposed to a perception that it was merely ―ritual without dogma‖, leads

556 See Plato, Statesman 290c-d. 557 Obviously the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity plays a part but unalloyed materialism seems to be the dominant motivation. 558 They were not immune from Aristophanes. See Birds line 520 where the seer Lampōn is lampooned. See also Garland (1984) 81-82. 559 ―Human interaction with the gods depended on the notion that the gods had appetites and aspirations, could be moved to affection and malice, and could feel pride and jealousy, and regret and grief.‖ Munn (2006) 295. 560 Humphries (2004) 275 and see also Munn (2006) 49-55. 126

her to propose a definition of religions as ―cultures of scholarship.‖561 This is as vague as Murray‘s engagement with the ―uncharted‖. What are we to make of an Athenian βαζηιεύο as the official in Athens in charge of an ‗Athenian culture of scholarship‘?

In defining ‗religion‘ the cultural anthropologist Melford Spiro submitted that

―[o]n the assumption that religion is a cultural institution, and on the further assumption that all institutions – though not all of their features – are instrumental means for the satisfaction of needs, I shall define ‗religion‘ as ‗an institution consisting of culturally patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman beings‘.‖562

According to Jonathan Smith, Spiro‘s ―anthropological definition‖ has ―gained widespread assent among scholars of religion.‖563 However, he was not satisfied with it. He addressed an even more fundamental issue; whether religion as a field of study is simply a modern construct. He thus equates the concept ‗religion‘ with such concepts as those of ‗language‘ and ‗culture‘. Hence: ―‗Religion‘ is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and therefore is theirs to define.‖564 He argues that ―religion‖ is a western concept imagined by scholars for their analytic purposes in just the last few centuries. Thus,

―[r]eligion has no independent existence apart from the academy. For this reason, the student of religion, and most particularly the historian of religion, must be relentlessly self-conscious. Indeed, this self-consciousness constitutes his primary expertise, his foremost object of study.‖565

There is, furthermore, a perspective that ‗religion‘ is a word only properly used in a Christian context, such that what it legitimately stands for is equipollent with Christianity. This equipollence of legitimate ‗religion‘ with Christianity is intellectualized in the work of Kant whose implications Derrida rendered as follows:

561 Humphries (2004) 275. 562 Spiro (1966) 96. 563 Smith (1998) 281. 564 Smith (1998) 281. 565 Smith (1982) xi. 127

―It necessarily follows [from the Kantian thesis] therefore that pure morality and Christianity are indissoluble in their essence and in their concept . . . From this it follows that the idea of a morality that is pure but non-Christian would be absurd; it would exceed both understanding and reason, it would be a contradiction in terms.‖566

Derrida goes on to refer to what he calls ―globalatinization ‖.567 We can thus refer to a habit of thought and an outlook by which the world is made ‗west.‘ Applied to ancient Athens we may refer to a process by which the past is made ‗west‘. To a degree this is about ethnocentrism, and to refer to ‗Athenian religion‘ (unless with rigorous and necessarily subjective definition specific to the context), and to the βαζηιεύο as in some sense a ‗religious official‘, is to be both be ethnocentric and anachronistic.568

(b) ‗Mondialatinization‘ of Athenian Religion

Thus, consider in this context Aeschylus, Persians, 809-810. In this passage Aeschylus records the destruction by the Persians of Greek temples and statuary of the gods. The crucial words for present purposes are: νἳ γ῅λ κνιόληεο ἗ιιάδ‘ νὐ ζε῵λ βξέηε ᾐδνῦλην ζπι᾵λ νὐδὲ πηκπξάλαη λεώο. Notwithstanding that in the passage there is no relevant adjective/noun construction, the 1926 translation of the Herbert Weir Smith includes the words ‗restrained by no religious awe‘ (emphasis added).569 Yet, for that there is only the verb αἰδένκαη (in the imperfect middle ᾐδνῦλην) which whilst it may connote the emotion of shame or awe, could mean only shame in respect of the wanton destruction of the property of others, or awe induced by the artistic qualities of the things being destroyed. At its highest the translation implies no more than that the translator understands ‗religious‘ to mean something to do with the gods and, at least in respect of the particular passage, no more than that can be imputed to Aeschylus. It is difficult not to construe the use of the word ‗religious‘ in the translation as gratuitous, and employed only so to be consistent with a desire to ascribe to the ancient Athenians an outlook in every

566 Derrida (1996) 10-11. 567 Derrida (1996) 11 and passim. 568 Consider in this context Martha (1882) 17-18: ―Il y a le dieu et son γέλνο une alliance indissoluble, qui nous fait penser à l‘alliance de Jéhovah et d‘Abraham . . . . Quand la volonté d‘un dieu s‘est clairement manifestée, iront- ils donc la contrarier?‖ 569 Smith (1926). 128

possible respect one that is harmonious with our own. Is it a case of Aeschylus speaking with voice of Herbert Weir Smith, rather than Herbert Weir Smith speaking with the voice of Aeschylus?

Jonathan Smith‘s view compels consideration to be given to the possibility that in ancient Athens there was no religion in the sense of religion as a phenomenon able to be meaningfully studied in isolation from a host of social, political and even economic phenomena, and the psychological impulses underlying them:

―while there is a staggering amount of data, of phenomena, of human experiences and expressions that might be characterized in one culture or another as religious—there is (sic) no data for religion.‖ (Emphasis as in the original).570

Here again is the problem of the imposition on the extant classical Greek sources of modern meanings for which the Greek has no particular word to offer. The sources offer ζενζεβήο and ζξεζθεία as candidates dedicated for translation as ‗religious‘ or ‗religion‘. But where the word ‗religion‘ has been used in translation it is generally not in connection with these candidates, and indeed the words ζενζεβήο571 and ζξεζθεία572 are especially rare in the extant sources. The word ‗religion‘ literally may have no place in the translation of the sources. The following analysis is offered as an illustration of this proposition.

Xenophon has been translated as referring to ‗a religious man‘. In Memorabilia, 1.4.16, he refers to the quality of Socrates‘ words and deeds with respect to the gods: ιέγνληα θαὶ πξάηηνληα πεξὶ ζε῵λ νἷά ηηο ἄλ θαὶ ιέγσλ θαὶ πξάηησλ εἴε ηε θαὶ λνκίδνηην εὐζεβέζηαηνο. This has been translated: ―his utterances about the gods and his behaviour towards them were the words and actions of a man who is truly religious and deserves to be thought so.‖573 There εὐζεβήο (in the superlative) might be translated as ‗truly righteous‘ or ‗truly pious‘. As the

570 Jonathan Smith‘s is a post-structuralist perspective, but structuralism is not dead. Robert Parker considers it inspirational. Thus, in regard to the study of ancient sanctuaries: ―Under the inspiration of structuralism on the page or in the air, the topic has in fact at last begun to attract attention.‖ Parker (2007) 50. 571 For ζενζεβήο see Herodotus, 1.86, 2.37; Aristophanes, Birds, 897; Plato, Cratylus, 394d; Plato, Epinomis, 977e; Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 3.3.58. 572 See Herodotus, 2.18. Θξεζθεία is modern Greek for ‗religion‘ and it has to be wondered to what extent that fact has influenced the translation of the ancient Greek. 573 Marchant (1923). 129

alleged charge against Socrates was, in part at least, one of impiety, it is not unreasonable given the overall tone of Xenophon‘s account of Socrates, to expect that Xenophon would have wanted to emphasize that Socrates‘ words and behaviour were indicative of the precise opposite of impiety; that Socrates was truly pious. It is implicit in this case, and odd, that the translator in effect equates ‗religion‘ with ‗piety‘. In any event, no more than a reference to piety can reasonably be attributed to Xenophon. Besides, there are references in the ancient sources that are taken by some to make a distinction between ‗religion‘ and ‗piety‘.574 This is not unexpected given that the gods were not the only object of piety. Piety was also the entitlement of parents and the deceased, and even strangers in respect of whom an obligation of hospitality has been accepted.575

Antiphon, 2.2 at 31, has also been taken to refer to a ‗religious man‘: ηὴλ δὲ νὐζίαλ νὐ δηθαδόκελνλ ἀιι‘ ἐξγαδόκελνλ θεθηεκέλνλ, θηινζύηελ δὲ θαὶ λόκηκνλ ὄληα. Maidment‘s translation is

―my wealth has come not from litigation, but from hard work; and I have been a religious and law-abiding man.‖576

The critical word is θηινζύηεο ‗fond of sacrifices‘. All we are entitled to take Antiphon to mean is that the defendant claims to be enamoured of custom when it comes to matters concerning the gods, just as he claims to abide by custom in matters of law (hence, λόκηκνο). Again, the translation implies that the translator understands ‗religious‘ to mean something to do with the gods and, at least in respect of the particular passage, at its highest no more than that can be imputed to Antiphon simply by reason of Antiphon‘s use of θηινζύηεο.

The same case can be made for Memorabilia, 4.8.11, where Xenophon uses εὐζέβεηα, thus:

ἐκνὶ κὲλ δή, ηνηνῦηνο ὢλ νἷνλ ἐγὼ δηήγεκαη, εὐζεβὴο κὲλ νὕησο ὥζηε κεδὲλ ἄλεπ η῅ο η῵λ ζε῵λ γλώκεο πνηεῖλ . . .

574 See for example, Xenophon, Memorabilia, 1.1.10; Demosthenes, 19.70, according to the translation of Vince and Vince (1926); and Demosthenes, 21.104, according to the translation of Murray (1939). 575 In respect of the entitlement to honour of parents and strangers as to the gods see Aeschylus: Suppliant Women, 704-705 and Eumenides, 254-270; Plato, Symposium, 188c; and Lycurgus, 1.94. In general see Mikalson (1983) 97-100; Parker (2007) 454; and relevantly regarding Oedipus at Colonus, Podlecki (1979) 68-69. 576 Maidment (1941). 130

Here, Marchant‘s translation is:

―For myself, I have described him as he was: so religious that he did nothing without counsel from the gods . . .‖577

Α similar example concerning the rendering of εὐζέβεηα is in Demosthenes at 23.25:

θαὶ πξνζεηπὼλ ὁ ζεὶο ηὸλ λόκνλ ‗ἐὰλ ἀπνθηείλῃ,‘ θξίζηλ πεπνίεθελ ὅκσο, νὐ πξόηεξνλ ηί ρξὴ πάζρεηλ ηὸλ δεδξαθόη‘ εἴξεθελ, θαι῵ο, ὦ ἄλδξεο Ἀζελαῖνη, ηνῦζ‘ ὑπὲξ εὐζεβείαο ὅιεο η῅ο πόιεσο πξντδώλ.

Murray‘s translation is:

―The legislator, while he presumes the killing, has nevertheless directed a judicial inquiry before specifying what is to be done to the culprit, and thereby has shown a just respect, men of Athens, for the religious feeling of the whole city.‖578

The attribution to Xenophon of a reference to ‗religious feeling‘ is also open to be argued as inappropriate. In Xenophon‘s rendition of the apology of Socrates (section 13) he has Socrates saying this in reference to his δαηκόληνλ:

νἶκαη νὕησο ὀλνκάδσλ θαὶ ἀιεζέζηεξα θαὶ ὁζηώηεξα ιέγεηλ η῵λ ηνῖο ὄξληζηλ ἀλαηηζέλησλ ηὴλ η῵λ ζε῵λ δύλακηλ.

Marchant translates this:

―I think that in using such a term [δαηκόληνλ] I am speaking with more truth and deeper religious feeling than do those who ascribe the gods' power to birds.‖

The adjective ὅζηνο (in the comparative form) might have been rendered as ‗more piously‘; ‗in a more hallowed way‘; or, ‗more devoutly‘. Socrates (or his alter ego, Plato) was not referring to feeling; he was referring to care in the use of words. It has to be wondered if Marchant‘s use of the words ―deeper religious feeling‖ is not more than a gratuitous deepening of the

577 Marchant (1923). 578 Murray (1939). 131

mysticism, something more akin to what is recognizable in today‘s world, that Socrates has become associated with by reason of his famous references to his δαηκόληνλ.

Arguably the same excess can be seen in a translation of Aristotle, Politics 1342a:

ὃ γὰξ πεξὶ ἐλίαο ζπκβαίλεη πάζνο ςπρὰο ἰζρπξ῵ο, ηνῦην ἐλ πάζαηο ὑπάξρεη, ηῶ δὲ ἧηηνλ δηαθέξεη θαὶ ηῶ κ᾵ιινλ, νἷνλ ἔιενο θαὶ θόβνο, ἔηη δ‘ ἐλζνπζηαζκόο· θαὶ γὰξ ὑπὸ ηαύηεο η῅ο θηλήζεσο θαηνθώρηκνί ηηλέο εἰζηλ, ἐθ η῵λ δ‘ ἱεξ῵λ κει῵λ ὁξ῵κελ ηνύηνπο, ὅηαλ ρξήζσληαη ηνῖο ἐμνξγηάδνπζη ηὴλ ςπρὴλ κέιεζη, θαζηζηακέλνπο ὥζπεξ ἰαηξείαο ηπρόληαο θαὶ θαζάξζεσο . . .‖

This has been rendered by Rackham as:

―. . . for any experience that occurs violently in some souls is found in all, though with different degrees of intensity—for example pity and fear, and also religious excitement; for some persons are very liable to this form of emotion, and under the influence of sacred music we see these people, when they use tunes that violently arouse the soul, being thrown into a state as if they had received medicinal treatment and taken a purge . . . ‖ 579

There is no qualification on ἐλζνπζηαζκόο in the text. Rackham in effect here defines religion as ‗a state of hysteria induced by music‘.

Pausanias 1.24.3:

ιέιεθηαη δέ κνη θαὶ πξόηεξνλ ὡο Ἀζελαίνηο πεξηζζόηεξόλ ηη ἢ ηνῖο ἄιινηο ἐο ηὰ ζεῖά ἐζηη ζπνπδ῅ο

―I have already stated that the Athenians are far more devoted to religion than other men.‖580

Xenophon in Hellenica, 6.1.2 refers to certain expenditure that was

εἴο ηε ηὰ ἱεξὰ ἀλαιίζθεηλ θαὶ εἰο ηὴλ ἄιιελ δηνίθεζηλ.

This has been translated:

579 Rackham (1952). 580 Levi (1971) 68. 132

―both for religious purposes and for the administration in general‖.581

Here, ἱεξόο could and arguably should have been translated as ‗matters concerning or to do with the gods‘ or words to that effect.

Most frequently in translation the word ‗religious‘ has been used to qualify, or wholly translate, words such as ἱεξνκελία, ἱεξόο ζεσξία, ἑνξηή, ζξεζθεία, ζπζία, ζῦκα, ὅζηνο, ἀθνζηόσ, ζεόο, and ζεῖνο, which might otherwise be translated using words such as ‗festival‘ vel sim., or ‗rites‘ or ‗observances‘ vel sim., or god, or divine vel sim.

The ancient Athenians did not have a religion, and yet English translations of their words have referred to the ―national religion‖ of the Athenians582 and to the ―mysteries of their religion‖583 These are particularly old and rare instances, but there are other numerous instances of the use of the word ‗religion‘ in translation in a wide variety of contexts such as, inter alia, something that could be shared (distinct from ―mystic ceremonies‖);584 something that could be revered585 or be honoured;586 something that could be offended against (distinct from piety),587 be derided (distinct from the derision of custom),588 be true to,589 be breached,590 be ―hated‖,591 or be respected592; be cared for;593 something able to be innovated;594 something that had ―requirements‖;595 something that could forbid (as distinct from the constraint of mere

581 Brownson (1918). 582 Adams (1919) Aeschines, 1.213. 583 Hobbes, Thomas (1843): The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Edited by William Molesworth, translation of Thucydides, Volumes I and II, London: Bohn, 6.28. 584 Bury (1967-1968) Plato, Letters, 333e. 585 Marchant and Bowersock (1925) Xenophon, Agesilaus, 3.2, relying on ζεῖα (of/from the gods, divine, sacred, vel sim). 586 Strassler (1996) Thucydides 3.82.8, relying on εὐζεβείᾳ (reverence towards the gods, piety, vel sim). 587 Marchant (1923) Xenophon, Memorabilia, 1.1.10-1.1.11, relying on ἀλόζηνλ (unholy, profane, vel sim). 588 Godley (1920) Herodotus, 3.38.1, relying on ἱεξόο and θαηαγειάσ (deride, jeer vel sim.) 589 Brownson (1918) Xenophon, Hellenica, 1.7.25, relying on εὐζεβέσ (live or act piously or reverently) and εὐνξθέσ (to be faithful to one's oath). 590 Bury (1967-968) Plato, Laws, 697c, relying on ὅζηνο (hallowed, sanctioned by law of the gods). 591 Murray (1939) Demosthenes, 21.150, relying on ἐρζξόο (hateful) and ζεόο (god). 592 Lamb (1925) Plato, Hippias Major, 293a. 593 Jowett (1881) Thucydides 3.82.8 relying on εὐζέβεηα (reverence towards the gods, piety, vel sim.). 594 Fowler (1966) Plato, Euthyphro, 3b, relying on ζεῖνο (of/from the gods, divine). 595 Murray (1939) Demosthenes, 23.78, relying on εὐζεβήο (dutiful, pious, righteous, vel sim.) 133

piety);596 something that could be distinct from justice,597 and law;598 something that could be served;599 and, something that could have offices.600

C Conclusion to this Chapter

The Athenians did not engage with the ‗uncharted‘ in a way that caused them to invent a generic term for the nature of the engagement. In short, they did not appear to have conceived of their having either a religion, or religion. Recognizing this, modern scholars have responded by conceiving the notion of ‗embedded religion‘. But it is here where the scholarship collides with the problem of definition. Thus, what is it that we are to suppose was embedded? And what does embedded specifically mean in this context anyway? Because no satisfactory answers can be given, the notion of ‗embedded religion‘ is an illusory solution.601 Besides, how would we characterize the role of the βαζηιεύο with respect to such a phenomenon?

Not only was the βαζηιεύο not Athens‘ religious authority when an examination of his role is made with reference to ancient Athenian ritual, but the very idea of a ‗religious authority‘ in ancient Athens is essentially meaningless.

596 Vince and Vince (1926) Demosthenes, 19.70, relying on ὅζηνο (hallowed, sanctioned by law of the gods, vel sim, and εὐζεβήο righteous, vel sim). Note again the distinction made between religion and piety. 597 Vince and Vince (1926) Demosthenes, 11.16, relying on εὐζεβήο and δίθαηνο. 598 Adams (1919) Aeschines, 1.14, relying on ζεῖνο (of, from the gods, divine). 599 Rackham (1952) Aristotle, Politics, 1320a, relying on ἱεξόο (super-human, mighty, divine, wonderful). 600 Rackham (1952) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1122b line 20, relying on δαηκόληνλ (the Deity). 601 See for an argument that religion was embedded in Athens, Rhodes (2009). And see for a critical analysis of the idea of embedded religion in connection with ancient cultures, Nongbri (2008). 134

135

CHAPTER FOUR

From Kreōn to Onēsippos – Part One: The Nine Archons and the Pre Demosthenic βαζηιεῖο

A The Nine Archons 136

(a) The Ancient Sources 136

(b) The Date of Inception of the Nine Archons 139

(d) Pre-Demosthenic References to the Annual βαζηιεύο 148

(i) The Nine Archons 148

(ii) The Athenian Law Code 410-399 BCE 152

(iii) Leases of Public Land 157

(iv) Eleusis Decrees 159

(v) The King‘s Law 160

(vi) The Herakleion at Kynosarges 161

B From Kreōn to Eukleidēs 162

(a) The Archon List 162

(b) Peisistratos 163

C Pre-Demosthenic Annual βαζηιεῖο 166

(a) Patrokles 166

(b) The ‗Eligibility‘ of Andokides 168

D Conclusion to this Chapter 170 136

CHAPTER FOUR

From Kreōn to Onēsippos – Part One: The Nine Archons and the Pre Demosthenic βαζηιεῖο

―Were every lost line written between 700-500 to be recovered, including the texts of laws and decrees as well as poems and philosophical writings, a generation of historians would be kept busy sorting and organizing and interpreting the new material—and we should still be unable to write a history of these two centuries, let alone of the earlier centuries.‖602

A. The Nine Archons

(a) The Ancient Sources

The extant literary record does not attest the institution of the nine archons until a date late in the 5th century, when Thucydides mentions the nine archons in connection with the Kylon affair.603 Thereafter, there are direct references in Plato,604 Aeschines,605 Pseudo-Demosthenes (Apollodoros) and Demosthenes,606 Lysias,607and Hypereides, until the institution is addressed more fully in the Ath. Pol.

The few extant direct references to the nine by the Atthidographers include associated references to the Areopagus council in which Androtion is in clear conflict with the Ath. Pol. on the issue of when the members, or former members, of the nine became members of the Areopagus, the Ath. Pol. asserting that the members of the nine commenced a life membership of the Areopagus after they had completed their year in office.608

602 Finlay (1975) 21. 603 Thucydides, 1.126.8. 604 Plato, Phaedrus at 325e. 605 Aeschines: 1.19; 1.21. 606 Demosthenes (Apollodoros): 59.80, 59.92; 59.106; Demosthenes: 18.112; 20.27; 20.28; 24.20; 24.150; 57.7; 21.85. 607 Demosthenes (Apollodoros): 59.103: the alleged decree of the Plataians whilst making the Plataians citizens precluded them from priesthoods or selection to the nine archons. 608 Ath. Pol., 3.6. cf. Pollux 8.118; Androtion 33a discussed in Jacoby (1954) 108. See also Rhodes (1992) 107. Forrest and Stockton (1987) argue on grounds of what they considered common sense that the members of the nine became members of the Areopagus from the moment of appointment. The argument cites Lysias 7.22 in support (see note 616 p. 138 below) but they overlook the possibility that if what they say was true at one time it may not have been the case at the time of the Ath. Pol. 137

The nine are mentioned by Pausanias609 and the chronographers. Synkellos, referred to the institution of rule by the nine archons, chosen from the Eupatridae, after the collapse of the monarchy in Athens.610

It cannot be doubted that it was a privileged group in the entitlement of its members to membership of the Areopagus Council.611

The epigraphic evidence referring, or possibly referring, to the nine archons does not materially illuminate in specific respects the office of βαζηιεύο in its context as one of the nine archonships. The earliest of the relevant inscriptions, IG I3 240, a fragment of a list of fasti sacri, is dated to 410-404 BCE.612

Whilst the epigraphic references to the nine archons are corroborative of the Ath. Pol.‘s treatment of the nine as a group, it must be emphasised that there is nothing in the extant ancient sources that permits a perception of the group as being necessarily collegiate in the sense of their having the power to make joint determinations, or their having acted as if they did. However, the record is ambiguous:

(i) The Ath. Pol. at 3.5 is open to the interpretation that originally the archons acted together to give final judgements, although the canonical view holds Ath. Pol. 3.5 as saying only that in their individual jurisdictions did each archon originally have the power to give a final judgement.

(ii) Rhodes allows collegiality in decision making for the ex-archons ―assembled in the council‖.613

(iii) An early 5th century inscription mentions the referral of matters in the agora (not identifiable from the inscription) to three archons in the agora; however, even for that vague reading restoration is required as follows: ηξε̑[οἄξρνληαο ηὸο] ἐλ ἀγνξ᾵η.614

609 Pausanias, 3.11.2. 610 Georgios Synkellos, Ekloge Chronographias, 251. 611 However see Carlier (1984) 327 note 16 regarding circumstances where the right might be forfeited. 612 See Dow (1941). The 4th century inscriptions are discussed at pp. 242-243 below. 613 Rhodes (1993) 106. 614 3 IG I 4.7 Attica 485/4 BCE. 138

(iv) Philochoros mentions the nine as presiding (ἐπεζηάηνπλ) with the boulē in respect of ostracisms.615 Precisely what they, or for that matter the boulē, did in that context is not clear.

(v) In the Scrutiny of Evandros Lysias may refer to them as a group performing rites (making specific mention of the βαζηιεύο) and he refers to them implicitly as being a credible group ‗witness‘, if called for the purpose, to an alleged criminal act.616

(vi) In Against Neaira, they are said to have gone up to the Areopagus as a group on appointed days.617

(vii) Plato, like the Ath. Pol., had them making a joint promise.618

(viii) Hypereides is alleged to have referred to the nine archons as dining together in a stoa (unidentified) a part of which was shut off for the purpose by a curtain.619

(ix) They are said to have dedicated a herm by the city-gate to commemorate the construction or restoration of a city wall.620

(x) Certainly they are treated as a group in the Ath. Pol. with a specific reference in 47.2 that the nine confirmed or certified (θαηαθπξόσ) the sale by the pōlētai of confiscated property.621

615 Jacoby (1954) Volume 3b (supplement), 227-228, (30FGrH328, Philochoros). See also Scholion on Aristophanes, Knights, 855. 616 Lysias 26.8 (Evandros); and Lysias 7.22 (The Olive Stump): the passage here is unclear and open even to the interpretation that the nine archons would act judicially: θαίηνη εἰ <ὅηε> θῄο κ‘ ἰδεῖλ ηὴλ κνξίαλ ἀθαλίδνληα ηνὺο ἐλλέα ἄξρνληαο ἐπήγαγεο ἢ ἄιινπο ηηλὰο η῵λ ἐμ Ἀξείνπ πάγνπ, νὐθ ἂλ ἑηέξσλ ἔδεη ζνη καξηύξσλ· νὕησ γὰξ ἄλ ζνη ζπλῄδεζαλ ἀιεζ῅ ιέγνληη, νἵπεξ θαὶ δηαγηγλώζθεηλ ἔκειινλ πεξὶ ηνῦ πξάγκαηνο. It also implies they were members of the Areopagus Council, see Forrest and Stockton (1987) 238 and note 608 p. 138 above. 617 Demosthenes (Apollodorus), 59.80. 618 Plato, Phaedo at 325e: Plato has Phaidros promising ―like the nine archons‘ to set up a golden statue at Delphi.‖ And Ath. Pol. 7.1. 619 Pollux, 4.122, referring to an alleged speech of Hyperides Against Patrokles. 620 According to Jacoby (1954) Volume 3b (supplement), 232, (F40FGrH328, Philochoros). The date seems to be in contention and the location vague: Judeich (1931) 142-143, says 493/492; and Weller (1913) 69 gives no date but specifies ‗Near the Asty Gate‘. Bieber (1966) 385 asserts the date 395/4 ―at the city (ἄοηγ(sic)) gate of the Piraeus‖; Garland (1987) 166: ―The Asty gate is the most likely location for the statue of the so-called ―Hermes at the Gate (pros têi pulidi)‖, set up by the nine archons in 394/3.‖ See Demosthenes 47.26. Presumably the Hermes referred to in Pausanias at 1.15.1 is a different statue. Judeich seems to be out by a century: Jacoby has it that Judeich was mistaken. 621 Discussed below at pp. 157-159 and at pp. 236-241 (the nine in Demosthenic Athens). See also Ath. Pol. 3.5 in regard to the nine at the Thesmotheteion; 7.3 and 7.4 in regard to class; and, 29.5 and 62.2 in regard to pay. 139

(xi) They are referred to as group in some 4th century BCE inscriptions.622

(xii) Some speculate that they are represented as a group on the East section of the Ionic Frieze of the Parthenon.623

For all that the Ath. Pol. asserts that, as discussed above, they were not physically co- located.624

It is a fair proposition that the institution was in place at the time it was mentioned by Thucydides, and that it was widely thought at that time to have been in place for a long time, indeed for many generations prior. But the mere fact that Thucydides refers to the institution in connection with the Kylon affair, and the fact that that affair is dated, though not without controversy, to the late 7th century, is not enough to conclude that the institution was established by then. We cannot take it for granted that Thucydides‘ specific reference was not anachronistic, including that the titular reference ἄξρνληεο was not anachronistic. He was referring to events that modern scholarship dates to at least nearly two centuries before his own time. We cannot know that he was not merely guessing that the administration of Athens at the time to which he was referring included the core of nine archons with which he was no doubt familiar from his own time, and that whatever such administrators there were at that earlier time they had the same titles as those of his own day. We simply do not know when the nine began to be called νἱ ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο. We need not presume that that would have mattered to Thucydides. Given the object of his work there is no reason to think that for him any debate about the title for the nine would have been more than just a quibble.625 The Ath. Pol.‘s reference in 7.3 to the nine in Solon‘s time was written a century or so later still.

(b) The Date of Inception of the Nine Archons

To recall the orthodoxy:

622 Discussed below p. 242-243. 623 Discussed below p. 253-254. 624 Ath. Pol., 3.5. 625 cf. Raaflaub (1998) 50: ―Thucydides our main surviving source for the period between Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, was interested in foreign policy, the build up of power and empire, not domestic affairs and constitutional developments.‖ 140

―On the fall of the kingship, the religious duties of the royal office were conducted by the king-magistrate (archon basileus), the military duties by the military magistrate (polemarchos), and the civil duties by the eponymous archon.‖626

The political organization of Archaic Athens is thus envisioned to have included an annual archonship having commenced not later than c.684 BCE when the eponymous archon first gave his name to the year.627 There goes with this the idea that the eponymous archon ruled in conjunction with an annual βαζηιεύο and an annual polemarch. To this partitioned monarchic sovereignty an annual group of 6 thesmothetai was added by c. 630 BCE628 and the resultant canonical group of nine officials (νἱ ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο) combined with the Areopagus Council to form a constitution even by then ―hallowed by centuries of tradition.‖629(Emphasis added).

Whatever conditions are necessary for a state to form, for Athens the conditions must have been met by the mid-5th century. When Athens became a state is important for present purposes because scholarship which has been directed to the issue of state formation in Greece implies at the very least that the presence of the triarchy (the eponymous archon, the βαζηιεύο and the polemarch) is evidence of Athens‘ having become a state. Runciman argues this in relation to the prytanis, basileus, and polemarchos of Corinth. Hence, by about 700 their power sharing ―was enough to mark the change from personal acknowledgment of the authority of the Homeric basileus to ‗effective ties of an institutional nature which operate the state continuously as a political unity.‘‖630

But it seems unlikely that the institution of the nine archons could have existed before Athens can be said to have become a state, and on the evidence that we have it seems unlikely that the institution commenced in the 7th century, or even the 6th.

626 Hammond (1963) 155. 627 684/3 is the date adopted by Develin. Others, not least Cadoux (1948) give the date 683/2. See the discussion in Develin (1989) 27. 628 Develin (1989) 2. Develin gives no reason for the date. He perhaps subscribes to the view of Rhodes that the Thesmothetai probably pre-dated Drakōn since otherwise we would know more about when and why they were instituted. Rhodes (1992) 102-3. 629 Hammond (1963) 155. 630 Runciman (1982) 370, quoting Roebuck (1972). Hence, in Runciman‘s conception the precursor to the annual official with the title ‗basileus‘ is to be taken to be a Homeric basileus. 141

There are four reasons:

(i) The first is that there is no satisfactory evidence that at the time it is alleged the institution was established, or for at least most of the rest of the archaic period, Athens actually needed it. This the subject of the next chapter.

(ii) The second reason is intuitive. It goes against the record of human experience that an institution can be established so well that it will not falter often and significantly before it becomes firmly established, even if the needs for which it is established do not change. Institutions, like machines, have to be commissioned, and adjustments are invariably required because the unadjusted specifications will be found not to meet exactly the needs for which the measure was designed. In short, even if Athens did need such an institutional arrangement by the mid 7th century or thereabouts it is unlikely that it would not have been adjusted, probably often and significantly, before it assumed its final form, its original form perhaps unrecognizable in the final.

(iii) The third reason is that the orthodoxy implies that whatever needs the institutional arrangement satisfied when it was put in place, those needs did not alter significantly thereafter in any way that did not also call for any major adjustment to the arrangement. The idea requires us to believe that the arrangement was at its beginning, and always thereafter, just sufficient for its purpose.631

(iv) The fourth reason is that for all of the 7th and 6th centuries, and for most of the rest of the period which is the particular concern of the present chapter, the years from 684 to the βαζηιεύο Onēsippos c. 400 BCE:632

(a) there is no extant contemporaneous record, and in general no extant record at all, of any eponymous archon;

631 There may have been adjustments in respect of eligibility and method of appointment. See Forrest and Stockton (1987) arguing for a radical reassessment of the historical record, such as it is, in regard to the archonship alleged for the archaic period. 632 The date of Onēsippos is discussed further at pp. 152, 168-170 below. 142

(b) in general such record of eponymous archons that there is, is of archons in respect of whom there is nothing known but a name;

(c) there is no extant contemporaneous record of any annual βαζηιεύο, or of a polemarch, or any thesmothetēs, and the few non-contemporaneous references that are extant are, on the whole, highly controversial.

Consider in this context the Archon List of 425 BCE.

IG3 1031, found in the course of the Agora excavations and dated to 425 BCE, has been identified as a fragment of a list of 6th century archons.633 The fragment contains seven names of which only four are reasonably identifiable, the first being the third name in the list: ‗Hippias‘. Whether or not this Hippias was the son of Peisistratos, the archonship of Hippias is dated to the 3rd year of the 63rd Olympiad, and therefore 526/525.634 Concerned with what documentary material was available to the Atthidographers, Jacoby considered this stone from that point of view and began by lamenting the fact that the names not only omit demotika but do not even give patronymics.635 He maintained that the fragment was from an official revision in c. 425 of a list of the annual archons going back perhaps two and a half centuries, and he relied on the fact that in the 4th century Atthides there is no discrepancy that would be suggestive of there being different lists to which the Atthidographers referred.636 He thus concluded that the stone is a fragment of a revision or re-edition of an official list of archons ‗which became authoritative for the Atthidographers either directly or indirectly through the first Atthis of Hellanikos.‘637 However, Jacoby had to concede that the historical record does not reveal any earlier record of the archon list prior to the alleged c. 425 revision. Unless there was some prior list or lists and or other records to which reference could have been made when the 425 list was prepared, that list can only have been prepared from some oral tradition, and

633 Meritt (1939) 60-65. The year is deduced from the known year for Miltiades 524/523 the 5th name in the list, hence: Kirchner (1901-1903) 10212; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 7.3. As to whether the stone is correctly identified as from an archon list see the references cited in Develin (1989) 47 and the additional material cited in Bradeen (1963) 187, note 2. 634 Hence, Develin (1989) 47. As to whether the Hippias in question was the tyrant son of Peisistratos see White (1974). 635 Jacoby (1949) 172. 636 Jacoby (1949) 171. 637 Jacoby (1949) 171. It is of course highly relevant, assuming Hellanikos is correctly dated, that the list of c. 425 predates his Atthis by some 20 years. 143

how reliable that would be would depend on how far back the 425 list went.638 For Jacoby it was a question of whether the list went back to the archonship of Solon (traditional date 594/3), or as far back as that of Kreōn (684/3 or 683/2). If it went back as far as Solon we have to imagine the memorization of some 170 names; if to Kreōn, some 260. Meritt speculated that the list started with Solon because of a reference in Plato to memorization of names having begun with Solon.639 Cadoux, as did Jacoby, argued for a list starting with Kreōn, given the uniformity of the Atthides and the lack of any evidence that at some late stage names were added to take the list back to an earlier period.640 Bradeen seems to have resolved the issue in favour of Kreōn on the basis that fragment ‗b‘ of IG I3 1031 (published by Bradeen in 1963) has two identifiable columns making it necessary to have as many names as would be required to take the list back to Kreōn ―in order for Erxikleides [whom Bradeen identified in fragment ‗b‘] in 584/7, may be in the second row by any arrangement in which the inscribed surface is as tall as or taller than its width.‖641 In any event Jacoby believed that the list of archons published in 425 began with the archon Kreōn in the year 683/682 in respect of which he said: ―. . . I consider the year to be historical and the earliest attested date in Attic history.‖642

However, there is cause for suspicion for any date prior to about 550 BCE, not least because there can be no certainty, and indeed there are reasons for doubt, that there were either regular annual appointments of archons and, even worse for chronology, that the Olympic Games were

638 De Sanctis argues that the Athenians began in about 682 to keep a record of their annual archons, but his view is essentially supposition. De Sanctis (1898) 155. Wilamowitz supposed that they began keeping records even earlier: ―Es kann doch niemand im Ernst an sich für unwahrscheinlich halten, dass eine solche offizielle Aufzeichnung um 750 in Athen begonnen ist.‖ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1898) 125. If, as Wilamowitz asserts, it is the case that nobody can earnestly hold that it is unlikely that an official recording began in Athens at 750 it is also the case that nobody can earnestly assert the opposite either. Samuel (1972) 197, after careful analysis, was of the view that ―[a]ll the evidence would seem to suggest that we should not posit an archon list available at Athens before the latter part of the fifth century.‖ 639 Meritt (1939) 65 referring to Plato, Hippias Major, at 285e. 640 Cadoux (1948) 78 and Jacoby (1949) 173-174. 641 Bradeen (1963) 197-198. Bradeen also seems to argue successfully ―the likelihood that the archon list was on a free standing stele, on which were engraved, in four even columns, the names from 683/2 to 424/3. If a continuation was planned, either year by year or column by column, this could well have been the back or on another stone placed alongside . . .‖ Bradeen (1963) 205. Incidentally, on architectural grounds he excluded the possibility that the stele stood in some connection with the fabric of the Stoa Basileios: Bradeen (1963) 204. 642 Jacoby (1949) 347 note 23 which is consistent with the Parian Marble. Develin (1989) 27 gives a date 684/3 for Kreon. Translations of the four fragments of the archon list, the one fragment published by Merritt (1939) and the three published by Bradeen (1963) can be found in Fornara (1983) 23 and Meiggs and Lewis (1988) 6. 144

held every four years.643 Nor does it assist that the name of the canonical first archon Kreōn is in effect synonymous with the word ‗archon‘.644

The problem presented by the memorization of names is a little more complicated than simply the memorization of the complement of annual archons. The ancient scholars referred to and relied upon, or so they say, a list that did not begin with the annual archons, but with a list of life archons, followed by a list of archons who held ten year terms. Jacoby said of these:

―I have no confidence in the preceding parts of the list, even less in the ἄξρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο than in those of δηὰ βίνπ, and I do not believe that we can gain from them any historical facts (as distinguished from the question about the origin and significance of the names admitted into the list).‖645

It will be recalled that the Ath. Pol. asserts that there were ten year term archons, but it is probably incorrect, if only because of the problem of proving a negative, to say as does Hignett that ―[t]he decennial archons interposed in our sources between the life-archons (or kings) and the annual archons have no historical reality.‖646

Even for Jacoby it was only a ‗supposition‘, to use his own word,647 that they were an invention, and the most that can be said is that there are no sound grounds in support of the apparent conviction of the ancient scholars‘ that the ἄξρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο existed.648 The problem is that the grounds for having confidence in the list are shaky, and to attack any part of it as unhistorical is to invite the dismissal of the whole. Jacoby set out and dismissed the substantial scholarship that argued that the list had been subject to several revisions, and that there were even divergences in the date of Solon‘s archonship.649

643 See Hall (2009) 33 and references. 644 Odysseus addresses Alkinous as Ἀιθίλνε θξεῖνλ, example, Odyssey 8.382. In Homer θξείσλ appears to be a more suitable title for addressing a king than the title βαζηιεύο. 645 Jacoby (1949) 347 note 23. 646 Hignett (1952) 43. 647 Jacoby (1949) 348 note 28, referring to his exploration of the issue in Jacoby (1902) 434 ff. 648 In that regard see Jacoby (1949) 348 note 28 649 Jacoby (1949) 346-347 note 22. 145

As far as Jacoby was concerned it was enough for confidence in the list of the annual archons to point to the apparent unanimity of the Atthides both as to the names and the sequence, and the fact that Aristotle clearly relied on the list.650

Yet twenty years after this Plommer called for more circumspection in relation to the list arguing that the list had been drawn up for the first time in 425 BCE and pointing out numerous anomalies in and in relation to the list, in particular concerning Drakōn, Solon and Kleisthenēs. However, he falls for what might be called ‗the fallacy of homonymity‘ in assuming that a ‗Solōn‘, a ‗Kleisthenēs‘ or a ‗Themistoklēs‘ in the list is one and same with the famous respective bearer of the name. For example, we have no sure way of knowing that the restored Kleisthenēs in the list for 525/524 is the same Kleisthenēs referred to as the ‗reformer‘. It might not be a Kleisthenēs at all, but a Pleisthenēs.651

There are additional problems in using the archon list in endeavouring to find a terminus post quem for the original inception of the annual office of βαζηιεύο.

Even if the list is a correct record of what it purports to record, or even only approximately so, it does not follow that the annual office of βαζηιεύο began in the archonship of Kreōn. The Ath. Pol. does not make the inception of the offices of archōn and βαζηιεύο coincident, and it is counterintuitive to think that it would have to have been. Indeed, it is at this point that the traditional account of the βαζηιεύο begins to break down. If for the present we accept the traditional account, we have to intuit that the archōn became an office in the midst of the monarchy, taking some share of royal powers, and being initially of no fixed term. Thereafter by growth of stature relative to the monarch the office of archōn, after itself becoming an annual office, created the conditions that made it possible to reduce the kingship to an annual office. It does not seem reasonable to imagine that the βαζηιεύο became an annual office before the office of archōn was instituted.652 Perhaps the idea of the ἄξρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο reflects some

650 Jacoby (1949) 171. 651 Plommer (1969) 126. The case for Pleisthenēs is made by Dillon (2006). 652It would be consistent with this analysis that the office of polemarch was instituted subsequently to that of the archōn as representing a further stage of diminution of the βαζηιεύο. There is an issue as to whether the office of polemarch was instituted before or after that of the archōn. 146

memory, formed within the context of the traditional story, of the office of archōn being originally of no fixed term; indeed of archons who held the office for the balance of their lifetimes ruling in conjunction with the βαζηιεύο, an office created initially to bring about some sort of balance of power between ‗monarchists‘ and ‗republicans‘ perhaps, or between adherents of some other ideological division that had developed.

Again, assuming for the sake of argument that the traditional account is true, it seems more likely that the annual archon had some history prior to 683/2, just as it seems likely the βαζηιεύο as a ruler δηὰ βίνπ had some history after the institution of the annual archōn. In short, even if 683/682 is a reliable historical date, it should not be taken as a sharp demarcation, but as being more likely an event in a generational process going on both before and after it, until its dénouement – the annual archōn side by side with the annual βαζηιεύο and their fellow annual archons.

But we should also consider a pre-683/2 BCE scenario for the institution of the annual archonship. The above argument would still apply of course, but if we are prepared to accept that the archon list had general credibility, but are not prepared to accept that it correctly states, if it is to be taken to so state, that Kreōn was the first annual archōn, there is even greater difficulty in specifying 684 as the date for the inception of for the annual office of βαζηιεύο. There is the problem of when the annual office of archōn began. Wallace dealt with this issue because of his concern to date the commencement of homicide trials on the Areopagus. Hence,

―. . . the role of the βαζηιεύο in Athenian homicide procedure presupposes that, when that procedure was instituted, the king himself ruled Athens; he had not yet been replaced by the Archon. By 682, when the list of annual archons began, the archon had become chief magistrate. Therefore, Athens‘ homicide procedure must be earlier than this.‖ 653

Wallace‘s central tenet that ―when that procedure was instituted, the king himself ruled Athens‖ is based on the following reasoning:654

653 Wallace (1989) 30. 654 Wallace (1989) 25. 147

(i) the Prytaneion by its name was once at the centre of the Athenian government;655

(ii) the eponymous archon replaced the βαζηιεύο as ‗chief magistrate‘;

(iii) the eponymous archon worked from the Prytaneion;

(iv) the βαζηιεύο convened his homicide court at the Prytaneion so the Prytaneion had been the regular place of business of the βαζηιεύο;

(v) therefore the βαζηιεύο was head of state when the Prytaneion court commenced operating.

Whilst the obvious unevidenced presumptions in the argument undermine its persuasiveness, the crucial point for present purposes is that Wallace does not concede that the annual archonship began in 682/683. In fact he implies that that date was at best a terminus ante quem for the archōn as ‗chief magistrate‘ in place of the βαζηιεύο.656 He seems furthermore to assume that the inception of the office of annual archōn coincided with the cessation of the βαζηιεύο as head of state for all purposes. That is to say that he seems to assume that the βαζηιεύο was replaced absolutely as head of state. He does not allow for the possibility that the βαζηιεύο may have remained a head of state for some time after the institution of the annual archōn, just as for example the British monarch has remained head of state in a system where it is the Prime Minister and his cabinet who exercise real power. Nor is that to say that the βαζηιεύο could not have remained head of state in a real sense for some time after the establishment of the archōn. The Athenians may have taken some time to have relinquished the monarchy (whether as rule by paramount basilēes or otherwise) and did so only gradually, just as they seem never have to have wanted to relinquish conferral of the title – given that they may not have done so.

De Sanctis did not allow for the possibility either, when he argued that the annual archonship must have commenced somewhere between about 750 and 650, but not before Eleusis was

655 Wallace (1989) 235 note 85: ―The etymology of prutanis is obscure . . . but the term was possibly derived from Asia Minor (like turannos and basileus) and cognate with the Etruscan magistrate name pur[],pur[]one, and with Hittite puri (‗master‘).‖ 656 Sarkady (1967) argued that the transition occurred in about 900BCE. 148

incorporated into Athens. According to him Eleusis was incorporated into Athens in the second half of the 8th century. He argued, that at that time, the βαζηιεύο must still have been head of state to have been given overall, albeit not detailed, supervision of the Mysteries: Hence:

―Quando Eleusi si unì ad Atene, il re era tuttora il capo dello stato; infatti fu incaricato dalla direzione ufficiale della solennità dei Misteri, mentre la vera direzione religiosa rimaneva agli Eumolpidi ed ai Cerici.‖657

He went on to argue that by first half of the 7th century the office of Archon had been instituted because by then Athens was sending a delegation to the Ionian festival of Apollo at Delos.658 De Sanctis‘ argument seems to begin with a non sequitur and also end with one.

(d) Pre-Demosthenic References to the Annual βαζηιεύο

(i) The Nine Archons

The few contemporaneous or near contemporaneous references to the nine archons that are extant are, as noted above, from the late 5th century, and principally from the latter part of the 4th (those in the Ath. Pol., and those by the Atthidographers); the chronographers are of course many centuries later. These references can hardly be considered a sound basis for conclusions as to the nature of an institution founded three centuries before, even if it could be agreed that the reference in Thucydides, and the later references, are a sufficient basis, taken together with the chronographers, for assuming that the institution existed from the traditional date of early 7th century, even if the thesmothētai are taken to be a (somewhat) later addition.

The institution of the nine archons is not recognizable in the extant fragments of Solon. The one possible reference, his alleged exhortation to obey the archons, cannot be a genuine fragment of Solon.659 There is no suggestion in the extant poem that Solon shared political power with anyone. There is, in addition, more than a little of the preacher in Solon: he portrays himself as a much better ‗high priest of the nation‘ than the unmentioned βαζηιεύο

657 De Sanctis (1898) 155. 658 De Sanctis (1898) 155. 659 Fragment XLV reported by Diogenianus, 2.99. See Linforth (1919) 170-171 and 245. 149

who, the orthodoxy would have us believe, exercised the religious prerogatives in Solon‘s ‗state‘.660

Amongst the other relevant extant works is a c. late 5th century BCE political pasquinade entitled Ἀζελαίσλ πνιηηεία. The author (‗the Old Oligarch‘) is unknown. Despite the title of the work, what the ‗Old Oligarch‘ actually says about the constitution he says only obliquely. In respect of its relevance to the present subject it is possible to infer that at the time of its writing it describes a constitution under which the offices of the state were open to all, but that in the case of some offices, military offices for example, the offices were not in fact sought by all.661

The fact that the βαζηιεύο is not specifically mentioned by the ‗Old Oligarch‘ is not an impediment to inferring from what the ‗Old Oligarch‘ says about offices in general, that the office of βαζηιεύο was not in the ‗Old Oligarch‘s‘ estimation, for what it is worth, in some exceptional category.

Isocrates (de Pace and Areopagiticus)662 and the historians, including the Atthidographers, do not specifically illuminate the βαζηιεύο beyond the degree to which they might be said to be reflected in the Ath. Pol.

There are no extant references to the institution of the nine archons prior to the late 5th century and such references as there are, are in general insubstantial, and in most cases, merely peripheral to some other matter.

As for an identifiable βαζηιεύο, polemarch or thesmothetēs, the alleged historical record663 for the 7th, 6th and 5th centuries BCE, and the 4th century to 388 BCE, a period of over 300 years, is as follows:

7th century

(a) 636/5 Epainetos (alleged eponymous βαζηιεύο).

(b) 621/20 Drakōn (alleged thesmothetēs).

660 See especially fragment XL: Stobaius, Eclogae, 3.9.23. 661 Pseudo-Xenophon, Ἀζελαίσλ πνιηηεία, 1.2-4. 662 Discussed in Keil (1892). 663 Based on Develin (1989). 150

6th century

(a) (precise year unknown) Epilykos (alleged polemarch).

(b) 562/1 Peisistratos (alleged polemarch) son of Hippokrates.

5th century

(a) 444/3 Eucharidēs (contemporaneous evidence: thesmothetēs).

(b) 404/3 Patrokles (contemporaneous evidence: βαζηιεύο).

4th century to 388 BCE

(a) late 5th century early 4th century: Onēsippos (contemporaneous evidence: βαζηιεύο).

Arid, in any event, as the record is, the identification of each one of these people is controversial in some way. Taking each seriatim we can make the following observations:

Epainetos: A fragment of Hippys (Ἵπππο) or Hippias (Ἵππηαο) (from Ἵππσλ in the source) of Rhegion (Ῥεγῖλνο) (epitomized by Myēs) in section 171 of the Historia mirabilis of Antigonos of Karystos reads as follows: ἐλ Ἀζήλαηο ἐπὶ βαζηιέσο ἖παηλέηνπ ὀιπκπίαδνο ἓθηεο θαὶ ηξηαθνζη῅ο ἐλ ἧη Ἀξπηάκαο Λάθσλ ληθ᾵η ζηαδίση (when Arytamas of Lakōnia was victor in the stadion in Olympiad 36, in Athens Epainetos was basileus.‖).664 The nomination of a βαζηιεύο as in effect eponymous, is of course an embarrassment to the orthodoxy. But that is not the only problem. In Eusebius it is Phrynōn who is victor in the stadion race in Olympiad 36, not Arytamas. It is easy enough to explain the identification of the victor as a mistake (either of Hippys or of Eusebius) but not so easy to explain the failure to nominate the eponymous archōn in accordance with orthodoxy. Hippys erred, or the orthodoxy is wrong, or there was something special about the year. Miller argues that the year must be the year of the Kylon

664 The entry in the Suda is as follows: s.v. Ἵππο, Ῥεγῖλνο, ἱζηνξηθόο, γεγνλὼο ἐπὶ η῵λ Πεξζηθ῵λ, θαὶ πξ῵ηνο ἔγξαςε ηὰο ΢ηθειηθὰο πξάμεηο, ἃο ὕζηεξνλ Μύεο ἐπεηέκεην: Κηίζηλ Ἰηαιίαο, ΢ηθειηθ῵λ βηβιία . . ., Υξνληθὰ ἐλ βηβιίνηο . . . , Ἀξγνιηθ῵λ . . . νὗηνο πξ῵ηνο ἔγξαςε παξῳδίαλ θαὶ ρσιίακβνλ θαὶ ἄιια. 151

affair, and Megaklēs, being the archōn eponymous, having been disgraced, was replaced by Epainetos.665 Yet Epainetos as one of the alleged treacherous nine archons would have been disgraced too, so her argument seems to fail for that reason alone. Jacoby suggests emendation of the text, to synchronize its reference to time with Sicilian chronology, and to ensure its consistency with the structure and names of the archon list which he insists that Antigonos would have used, and which would not have varied. Jacoby allowed two other possibilities, one of which would interfere with the orthodoxy, and that will be considered below. The other was that an addition was made to the text by Hippys‘ epitomizer Myēs.666

One solution is to dismiss Hippys altogether. Consider what we have here by way of evidence. Antigonos in the 3rd century BCE in effect said (because Antigonos was using Myēs‘ abridged version of Hippys) that Myēs (whoever he was) at some time in about the early 3rd (or late 2nd century BCE) said that Hippys in the 5th century BCE667 said that in a specified year one or two centuries before he (Hippys) was born Epainetos was king of Athens, and Arytamas of Lakōnia won the stadion at the Olympics. There is in addition no indication whatsoever as to how Hippys knew these things. In fact, we cannot be sure that Hippys even existed.668

The Antigonos fragment is not really evidence at all. It is an item for the antiquarian to file away in the hope that something might turn up one day that will make it useful.

Drakōn, Epilykos, Peisistratos and Charmos: The issues as to the official status of these are adequately dealt with by Develin.669 In no instance can there be any real confidence at all that the dates and designations given above are correct. The better view is that they cannot be reasonably relied upon.

665 Miller (1969) 81. 666 See Jacoby (1949) 307 note 44, and id. (1954) Vol. 3, 285-288 (F3FGrH554). 667 Hippys is generally accepted as dated to late 5th century: Jacoby (1949) 307 note 44. See also Samuel (1972) 189 and 200; and Cadoux (1948) 91. 668 See Pearson (1987) 8-10 and references. At 8: ―there are good reasons for adding his [Hippys‘] name to the list of imaginary writers whose works were invented in Hellenistic times in order to supply ‗evidence‘ from early literature when it was required to support some theory.‖ 669 Develin (1989) 31-32, 34, 41-42, and 43 respectively and references in each case. 152

Eucharidēs: Eucharidēs is the first reasonably attested thesmothetēs, scant though the attestation is.670

Phryomachos: all we have is a brief inscriptional reference: ἐπὶ Φπξνκάρν βαζηιεύνληνο. 671

Patroklos: This βαζηιεύο and his date are attested by a reference in Isocrates.672

Onēsippos: The date is uncertain and ranges between 412 BCE and 388 BCE. He is otherwise well attested by a herm base found in the excavations of the Agora in 1970.673

Phryomachos, Patrokles and Onēsippos are discussed further below.674 It suffices for the present to observe that the record for specific members of the nine archons holding a title that would be consistent with the existence of the group at any time in the 7th and 6th centuries is, as indicated, unconvincing. The 7th and 6th centuries are mute as to the existence or otherwise at any time within them of the nine archons as a group. Later references to the existence or otherwise at any time within those two centuries of the group, are centuries, even many centuries, later than the time at which the nine as a group are alleged to have been in some respect an historical actor. Even at that, virtually none of the references is non-controversial in some significant way.

However, there are other pre-Demosthenic references to the annual βαζηιεύο.

(ii) The Athenian Law Code 410-399 BCE.

There are serious problems with the proposition that the first extant reference to the Athenian βαζηιεύο is contemporaneous with Drakōn.675

It has been argued that a stele found in near the site of the ancient agora676 is an accurate republication, set up in 409/408, of the first two, and possibly the third, of the axōnes of

670 See IG I2 911.5 Δὐραξίδελ ζεζκν(ζέηελ) and IG I3 433.11-12: line 11 [Δ]ὐραξί[δν γξα]κκ[αηεύνληνο v] line 12 [Ἀ]θηδλαίν ∶ [ἐπ]ηζηάηα[η ․c.6․․] and Develin (1989) 86 and 105. 671 IG I3 1384 (I2 776) dated to c. last decade of the 5th century BCE. 672 18.5: ἦξρνλ κὲλ γὰξ νἱ δέθα νἱ κεηὰ ηνὺο ηξηάθνληα θαηαζηάληεο, ὄληνο δέ κνη Παηξνθιένπο ἐπηηεδείνπ, ηνῦ ηόηε βαζηιεύνληνο . . . 673 See Develin (1989) 225 and references and further discussion below. 674 pp. 166-170. 675 Pace Carlier (1984) 324 note 1. 676 IG I3 104 dated to 409/408. See Stroud (1968) and Meiggs and Lewis (1988) No. 96. 153

Drakōn‘s homicide law.677 In the preamble to the alleged First Axōn of the alleged ‗republished‘ law the anagrapheis are enjoined to inscribe the law on a marble stele and to place the inscription in front of the Stoa Basileios. It seems they obtained the text from the βαζηιεύο and the boulē, and that their responsibility did not extend to any composition in respect of the text.678 It might be wondered what the point of the exercise was if there was nothing new in the text, and for the same reason, why the anagrapheis were not involved.679

Drakōn‘s law is described as doing more than merely proscribing pre-meditated murder. It establishes a penalty of exile, and sets up an elaborate procedure for official intervention to decide on issues of motivation and intent, defences and means of resolution. It can be inferred from what the law expressly states, and from what it assumes to be known, that this is a law which in its details was made by a community with considerable experience of homicide, and ways and means of dealing with it. Thus, the law is expressed to a degree cryptically, clearly relying on common knowledge. It is a law whose detail is understandable in late 5th century Athens after a long battle with Sparta, plague and civil war. But such a law is not so understandable in respect of late 7th century Athens. We have no history which can in the least way justify the proposition that by the late 7th BCE century Athens had so much experience with homicide that it was able to formulate a sophisticated jurisprudence in relation to it, render this in sophisticated written terms (able to be read and understood by a sufficient number to make its publication worthwhile) and to establish a judicial apparatus to implement it. We have even less reason to think that the Athenians had learned so little about jurisprudence in the two centuries since Drakōn that at the end of the 5th century, with all that they had gone through in the meantime, including a substantial increase in population and social complexity (and thus no doubt in crime), they had nothing to add to what we presume to know had been formulated by Drakōn. Furthermore, the law in relation to homicide seems to have developed significantly by the time of the Ath. Pol. relative to the presumed extant law of Drakōn.

However, Bonner and Smith in effect (subject to a vague reference to some possible revision to reflect a matured ‗religious‘ sensibility in Athens) submitted that what the Ath. Pol. said of

677 Stroud (1968) 34-40, 58-64. Gagarin (1981) especially 21-23 agrees with Stroud‘s view and so largely does Rhodes (1992) 111-112. Sealey(1983) 43-50 disagrees with the Stroud view. 678 cf. Stroud (1968) 25. 679 See in general Rhodes (1991) and references, and Gallia (2004) and references. 154

contemporaneous homicide law, and administration in relation to it, had been the law in Athens when it was codified by Drakōn. The implication is that there had been no substantive development in jurisprudence in Athens in relation to homicide for some three and a half centuries.680 There had obviously been substantial change in Athens over that period, both in law and in public administration. A manifest Athenian capacity for adaptation to changing circumstances is inconsistent with any idea that they were reluctant to change their laws.681

The annual βαζηιεύο is referred to in the preamble to the re-published restored law of Drakōn, IG I3 104.682

Thus, lines 4-8:

ηὸ[λ] Γξάθνληνο λόκνλ ηὸκ πεξὶ ηõ θό[λ]ν ἀλαγξα[θ]ζά[λ]ηνλ νἱ ἀλαγξ̣αθẽ-

ο ηõλ λόκνλ παξαιαβόληεο παξὰ ηõ β̣[α]ζ[η]ι.έ[νο κε]η[ὰ ηõ γξακκ]αηέν- ο ηẽο βνπιẽο ἐζηέιεη ιηζίλεη θαὶ θα[η]α[ζ]έλη[νλ πξόζ]ζε[λ] ηẽο ζην- ᾵ο ηẽο βαζηιείαο· What is to be made make of the fact that the λόκνο was seemingly in the joint custody of the βαζηιεύο and the boulē is not clear. Ζowever, it is significant that the law is referred to as a λόκνο rather than by the archaic ζεζκόο. This is contrary to the usage in Andokides‘ rendering of the decree of Teisamenos.683 In any event, in the partly restored text of IG I3 104, lines 11-13 and lines 34-36 are as follows respectively. Lines 11-13:

θαὶ ἐὰκ κὲ ‘θ [π]ξνλνί[α]ο [θ]η[έλεη ηίο ηηλα, θεύγ]ε[λ· δ]η- θάδελ δὲ ηὸο βαζηιέαο αἴηη̣ν[λ] θόλ̣[ν] E ...... 17...... Δ [β]νι-

εύζαληα· ηὸο δὲ ἐθέηαο δηαγλ[õ]λ.[α]η̣.

680 Bonner and Smith (1930-38/2000/) Volume I, 110-112. 681 cf. the idea that the Greeks discouraged attempts to change the law: Bonner and Smith (1930-38/2000) Volume I, 75. 682 Dated to 409/408. Restoration of IG I3 104 has been informed generally by references to the law in relation to homicide in Demosthenes, in particular, Demosthenes 23. 683 cf. Sealey (1994) 116 who by implication argued that the use of nomoi for Solon‘s laws and thesmoi for Drakōn‘s in the decree of Teisamenos (403/2 BCE) (according to Andokides: 1.83) was significant. 155

Lines 34-36:

õλ. ἀ[δίθνλ ...... 30 ...... ρεξ]õλ ἀδίθνλ θ-

ηέ[λεη . . .7. . .]΢[ ...... 19 ...... δηαγηγλόζθ]ελ. δὲ ηὸο ἐ- [θέη]αο

684 Bonner and Smith restored lines 34-36 to find ‗βαζηιέαο‘ there also:

ἐὰλ] ἀέθνλ θ- η[έλεη, δηθάδελ δὲ ηὸο βαζηιέαο αἰηηõλ θόλν, δηγλõλαη δ]ὲ ηὸο ὲ- [θέηαο Bonner and Smith translated this as follows: ―. . . if the slaying is unpremeditated, the kings shall decide the nature of the homicide and the ephetai shall render the verdict.‖685 The restoration of line 12 has been done in a variety of ways.686 The following translations reflect two possible senses of the text:

―Even if a man unintentionally kills another he is exiled. The kings are to adjudge responsible for the homicide either the killer or the planner; and the ephetai are to judge the case.‖

And:

―Even if someone kills another unintentionally, he shall stand trial. The kings are to judge him guilty of homicide whether he killed with his own hand or conspired to kill; and the ephetai shall decide the case.‖687

The problems, both absolute and comparative, with these two translations are obvious enough, and that is before consideration is given to what the law is to be presumed to say about

684 Bonner and Smith (1930-38/2000) 113. 685 Bonner and Smith (1930-38/2000) 114. 686 Some attempts at the 17 spaces between the epsilons are Dareste (1898) No. 21, 3-24: ἐάλ ηηο αἰηη᾵ηαη hὸο, reproduced in Bonner and Smith (1930-38/2000) 112; Treston (1923) 195-197: ἐάλ ηηο αἰηη᾵ηαη κὴ βνπ-; and Phillips (2008) 49 (and see 41, with note 25, and 49): ηὸλ αὐηὸρεξ θηέλαλη‘. See also Gagarin (1986) 87. 687 Phillips (2008) 50. 156

intentional homicide.688 Osborne argues that the emphasis of the law is on who had the right to grant (or to prevent the grant of) pardon, not on the nature of the killing, and that this fact is evidence of a ―close relationship to the law enacted in the late seventh century.‖689 But if it is believed there was such a law made in the 7th century it is otiose to use the text made in the 5th century as evidence. What is needed is evidence for the belief.

Whether the basileis were to make a determination in respect to category of homicide, or to judge guilt or innocence, or it was something else they had to determine, the broad position was that it was for the basileis a case of dikazein, and for the ephetai a case of diagnōnai. The use of different verbs suggest that what they were to do was different in nature, but what the difference the text seeks to reflect is not clear.690

Bonner and Smith refer to four theories as to who the basileis were: the nine archons; the phylobasileis; the annual βαζηιεύο referred to as in succession; and the annual βαζηιεύο with the phylobasileis.691 They opt for the last of the four, weaving into their awkward explanatory narrative ―the coming of the idea of pollution and the interference of the state in homicide‖.692 There are certainly problems with the idea that the reference is to the annual βαζηιεύο, notwithstanding a passage in Antiphon that can be interpreted as evidence in support.693 There are linguistic problems that seem to outweigh any arguments in favour. As Gagarin points out, if the intention was to refer to the βαζηιεύο in successive years, the plural would have been abnormal and unnecessary.694 We simply do not know to whom Drakōn‘s law is referring by the word βαζηιεῖο, and even if the law is in fact an exact replica of something promulgated by Drakōn, it is not evidence that the annual office of βαζηιεύο existed in the 7th century BCE.695

688 See the detailed discussion of the problems in Stroud (1968) 42-45. 689 Osborne (2009) 176 690 See Gagarin (1981) 47-48 in regard to the distinction. The annual βαζηιεύο in relation to homicide is discussed further below at pp. 263-264. 691 Bonner and Smith (1930-38/2000) 116-118 with references. 692 Bonner and Smith (1930-38/2000) 118. 693 Antiphon 6.42. 694 Gagarin (1981) and references. See also MacDowell (1999) 87-88 and note Papakonstantiou (2008) 85: ―With particular reference to Draco‘s law the basileis were certainly not the community chieftains that we encounter in Homer and, perhaps with their power reduced, in Hesiod.‖ 695 Stroud (1968) 46 considered that the ephetai as a jury, not the illusive βαζηιεῖο, decided guilt or innocence, and that it is not helpful to look for the identity of the βαζηιεῖο for the purposes of Drakōn‘s law in the amnesty decree of Solon (Plutarch, Solon, 19.4), in Patrocleides decree (Andocides 1.73,76, 80), or in the Ath. Pol. (57.4). 157

No better result, despite the best efforts of Dow, comes from an examination of the ἐθ rubrics in the extant laws of Solon, also published in the last decade of the 5th century BCE. Thus:

―At some remote time, the Athenians instituted one monarch over all. The king, when he acquired power enough to be called King (βαζηιεύο) and to demote the four to the qualified status of Tribe-Kings (θπινβαζηιεῖο), could undoubtedly set about acquitting the privileges of offering many sacrifices. In cult as in secular matters, King‘s Law would grow up. Doubtless our State Calendar, if more fully preserved, would have rubrics ἐθ η῵λ βαζηιηθ῵λ. But the King could not, in cult, entirely supplant the Tribe-Kings and their more ancient rites.‖ (Emphasis as in original).696

The fact is that in the extant laws of ‗Solon‘ there are no ἐθ η῵λ βαζηιηθ῵λ rubrics, nor should we expect there would be if the laws are in fact laws of the late fifth century BCE.

(iii) Leases of Public Land 697

The common translation of the word κίζζσζηο is ‗lease‘ and that is perhaps not controversial given that the ancient record in respect of public land clearly suggests the granting of an exclusive right of occupation, or at least of exploitation, for a fixed period at a specified rent to be paid periodically.698 However, the word can also mean rent, income from land, and even wages.699 The annual βαζηιεύο figures prominently in a grant of a lease by a decree, IG I3 84 dated to 418/7, of the boulē and the demos, with the following obligations and liabilities under the decree (as amended by a certain Adousios):

(a) in conjunction with the poletai, to let the temenos for 20 years, subject to the ρζπλγξαθὰο (thus the phrase in the decree ηὸ δὲ ηέκελνο ὁ βαζηιεὺο ἀπνκηζζνζάην θαηὰ ηὰο ρζπλγξαθὰο);700

696 Dow (1953) 26-27. 697 The modern literature includes Behrend (1970); Walbank (1983a); (1983b); (1983c); (1983d); and (1983e); Lalonde, Langdon and Walbank (1991); Shipton (2000); Williams (2002); and very recently Papazarkadas (2011). 698 The record is mainly epigraphic. See Shipton (2000) 23. Regarding the translation of κίζζσζηο see the use of the word in Plato, Sophist, 219d; Demosthenes 36.7 and 27.59; Ath. Pol. 47.4 (cf. Plato, Laws 759e). 699 See Liddell and Scott et al. (1996) s.v. κίζζσζηο. 700 Lines 6-7. θαηὰ ηὰο ρζπλγξαθὰο occurs also in lines 12-13 and 31. θαηὰ ηὰο ζπλγξαθὰο occurs in line 5. Wheeler (1887) 43 puts the inconsistency down to a spelling error, but the variants are probably equally valid. 158

(b) to be liable to a fine of 1,000 drachmae if he fails to let the temenos during the prytany of the Aigeis;701 and,

ὁ δὲ βαζηιεὺο ἐρζαιεςάην ηὸλ πξηάκελνλ η- ὴλ ἰιύλ, ἐπεηδὰλ ἀπνδõη ηὲκ κίζζνζηλ· ηὸλ δὲ κηζζνζάκελνλ ηὸ ηέκ- ελνο θαὶ ὁπόζν ἄλ κηζζόζεηαη ἀληελγξαθζάην ὁ βαζηιεὺο ἐο ηὸλ η- νῖρνλ θαὶ ηὸο ἐγγπεηὰο θαηὰ ηὸλ λόκνλ ὅζπεξ θεῖηαη ηõλ ηεκελõλ.702 In regard to (a) a problem lies in the term ρζπλγξαθαί.703 What was the nature of the ρζπλγξαθαί? Who made them, and were they mere recommendations, or were they in effect prescriptive? The ρζπλγξαθαί may be in the text of the decree. For example, terms which govern the lease are set out at the end of the decree (see below). Whether they are all that is contained in the relevant ρζπλγξαθαί we do not know. If it is all that they contained it is notable that the author or authors of the ρζπλγξαθαί did not specify the rent to be paid.

What is also not clear, and important for present purposes, is the degree of any discretion available to the βαζηιεύο. Did he have to vet potential lessees for suitability by reference to character, or capacity to comply with the terms of the lease? We do not know precisely the real scope of the responsibility that the decree placed upon the βαζηιεὺο.

As for (b) a literal translation of the text extracted above would be near to meaningless. Wheeler achieved some sense by interpolation:

―The Basileus shall erase (the name of) the buyer of the mud, whenever he shall make the payment, and in its place he shall write (ὰληελγξαθάησ) upon the wall (the name of) the lessee of the temenos with the amount of the rent and (the names of) the bondsmen, according to the law for the regulation of sanctuaries.‖

701 The Aigeis tribe was to hold the prytany following the prytany of the decree (as stated in the decree, that prytany was held by the tribe Pandionis): see Williams (2002) 52 and references. 702 IG I3 84 lines 22-25. See translation below of these lines by Wheeler (1887) 41 and in general on the decree Wheeler (1887). Also Williams (2002) 45-88; Papazarkadas (2011) 58 note 175 and references and 72. 703 Rhodes (1972) 127 refers to the adoption of ζπγγξαθαί by the boulē in the capacity, according to Rhodes, of the boulē to make contracts. See also Liddell and Scott et al. (1996) s.v. ζπγγξαθή. 159

That the lease itself apparently had nothing to do with the sacred may be ascertained from a consideration of what was in the deal for the lessee. Thus, lines 33-38:

όιεηαη, θαὶ ηẽο ηάθξν θαὶ ηõ ὕδαηνο θξαηẽλ ηõ ἐγ Γηὸο ηὸλ κηζζνζά- κελνλ, ὁπόζνλ ἐληὸο ῥεῖ ηõ Γηνλπζίν θαὶ ηõλ ππιõλ ε <η>̑ ἅιαδε ἐ[ρ]ζεια- ύλνζηλ νἱ κύζηαη θαὶ ὁπόζνλ ἐληὸο ηẽο νἰθίαο ηẽο δεκνζίαο θαὶ η- õλ ππιõλ αἳ ἐπὶ ηὸ Ἰζζκνλίθν βαιαλεῖνλ ἐθθέξνζη· The implication is that the lessee had the right to commercially exploit the land, and a channel (or ditch) within it (or perhaps contiguous to it), by cultivation of olive trees, and perhaps as well, having regard to the earlier parts of the inscription referred to above, by the commercial exploitation of mud (ἰιπο) in the trench.

The terms of the decree are largely incomprehensible now, and seemingly any action taken pursuant to it would have been fertile ground for litigation. It suffices to note here that there is nothing in the express terms of the lease that imposes an obligation on the lessee in respect of Kodros, Neleos and Basilē, the divine owners of the land.704

(iv) Eleusis Decrees

The annual βαζηιεύο is also referred to in a pre-Demosthenic decree IG I3 78 concerning Eleusis.705 Cavanaugh dates this decree to c.432/431.706 However, its date is still not clear.707 Certainly, the decree, known as the First Fruits (it concerns the offerings of barley and wheat as first fruits at Eleusis), falls within the latter half of the 5th century.708

704 On the other hand in line 22 of the decree—the purchaser of mud must pay the price to Neleos. 705 The modern literature includes Cavanaugh (1996) and Clinton (2005). 706 Cavanaugh (1996) 73-95. 707 Clinton (2005) number 28, dates it to c.440–435. For the history of the scholarship concerning the date see Cavanaugh (1996) 19–27. Cavanaugh‘s reasoning is based on the fact that the epistatai, an administrative board concerned with finances at Eleusis formed pursuant to a decree IG I3 32 dated by Cavanaugh to the late 430‘s, are not mentioned in IG I3 78, whilst the hieropoioi who had functions pursuant to IG I3 78, are not mentioned in IG I3 32, accordingly IG I3 78 must be earlier than IG I3 32. But as Rosivach (1996) in effect points out, the argument is a non sequitur, because it assumes without any evidence that the epistatai entirely took over the role of the hieropoioi. In addition, Rosivach cites other evidence that Cavanaugh does not seem to have considered. 708 See Rhodes (1972) 94 note 2 who gives 445 to 415 as a range, but note that now Rhodes (2009) 4 note 7 agrees with Cavanaugh . 160

In an amendment to this decree, moved by the xrēsmologos or (mantis) Lampōn, the βαζηιεὺο was enjoined to set the limits of the sacred places in the Pelargikon709 and to make a report (εἰζαγγέιισ) to the boulē with regard to anyone who contrary to the terms of the decree built altars in the Pelargikon without the consent of the boulē and the demos.

The role given to the βαζηιεὺο to fix boundaries raises an issue related to IG I3 84 where mention is made of the horistai, a body of boundary setters. If, as Wheeler argues we are entitled to presume the permanent, as opposed to ad hoc, existence in Athens in the 5th century of the horistai, there is an implication from IG I3 78 that the Pelargikon was a special case, and that therefore IG I3 78 indicates a special status belonging to the βαζηιεὺο, the implication being a special ‗religious‘ status.710 However, whilst this may be so it does not necessarily follow. The implied basis of the argument is that sacred places would only have been administered by persons having some special connection with the sacred. Even if it was the case that the βαζηιεὺο was officially recognized in such terms, it is hardly likely that the decree contemplated the βαζηιεὺο personally attending to the fixing of boundaries. It is more reasonable to assume that the decree envisioned the delegation of the duty, perhaps to the horistai if they existed at the time. Are we required to presume that the βαζηιεὺο would have been obliged to appoint delegates who also had some special ‗religious‘ status?

(v) The King‘s Law.

Athenaeus (c. 2nd century CE)711 alleges that Kratēs of Mallos (2nd century BCE) alleged that there was a law concerning the βαζηιεύο (ἐλ ηῶ ηνῦ βαζηιέσο λόκῳ) as follows:

ἐπηκειεῖζιζαη δὲ ηὸλ βαζηιεύνληα η῵λ ηε ἀξρόλησλ ὅπσο ἄλ θαζηζη῵ληαη θαὶ ηὸπο παξαζίηνπο ἐθ η῵λ δήκσλ αἱξ῵ληαη θαηὰ ηὰ γεγξακκέλα.

ηνὺο δὲ παξαζίηνπο ἐθ η῅ο βνπθνιίαο ἐθιέγεηλ ἐθ ηνῦ κέξνπο ηνῦ ἑαπη῵λ ἓθαζηνλ ἐθηέα θξηζ῵λ, δαίλπζζαί ηε ýηνὺο ὄληαο Ἀζελαίσλý ἐλ ηῶ ἱεξῶ θαηὰ

709 It was thus moved that: ηὸλ δὲ βαζ[η]ιέα ℎνξίζαη ηὰ ℎηεξὰ ηὰ ἐλ η[õ]η Πειαξγηθõη, θαὶ ηὸ ινηπὸλ κὲ ἐλℎηδξύεζζαη βνκὸο ἐλ ηõη Πειαξγηθõη. Much about the Pelargikon is enigmatic: see Camp (1984) and references. 710 Wheeler (1887) 48-49. 711 Athenaeus, 6.235B-D. 161

ηὰ πάηξηα ηὸλ δ‘ ἑθηέα παξέρεηλ εἰο ýηὰ ἀξρεῖαý ηῶ Ἀπόιισλη ηνὺο Ἀραξλέσλ παξαζίηνπο ᾵πὸ η῅ο ἐθινγ῅ο η῵λ θξηζ῵λ.712

In an earlier passage Athenaeus also has Polemōn of Athens (2nd century BCE) asserting, inter alia, that: θἀλ ηνῖο ηνῦ βαζηιέσο δὲ λόκνηο ―γέγξαπηαη ζύεηλ ηῶ Ἀπόιισλη Ἀραξλέσλ παξαζίηνπο.‖713

Clearly the annual βαζηιεύο was the subject of regulations concerning the appointment of parasites in the context of law or laws that had become known by the name of his office, or perhaps of a law or laws so named in the first place. It seems likely ‗the king‘s law‘ was in place by the mid 5th century BCE.714

(vi) The Herakleion at Kynosarges

There is an Attic decree, IG I3 257 dated to 440-430 BCE as follows:

[...... 16[...... δξ]- αρκά̣ο. ἐπ[ηκ]έιεζζαη̣ δὲ ηὸκ βαζηιέα· γξάθζαη δ- ὲ ἐζηέιεη ιηζίλεη θαὶ ζηẽζαη ℎεθαηέξνζη· κε- δὲ δέξκαηα ζέπελ ἐλ ηõ- η ℎηιηζõη θαζύπεξζελ ηõ ηεκέλνο ηõ ℎεξαθιέ- [ν]ο· κεδὲ βπξζνδεθζẽλ κ- [εδὲ θαζά]ξκα̣[η]α <ἐ>ο ηὸλ π- [νηακὸλ βάιιελ . .]#7[. . .] Carlier argues that this decree, which proscribes tanning and soaking of skins in the Ilissos River near the Herakleion at Kynosarges, should be interpreted as a decree requiring the annual βαζηιεύο to be responsible, inter alia, for the cleanliness of the sanctuary.715 The argument requires that: ―Il serait contraire aux habitudes de rédaction des décrets attiques que l‘on

712 Text reproduced from Schlaifer (1943) 38. 713 Athenaeus, 6.234F (concluding part). See pp. 104-106 above for a discussion of issues relating to the topographical context. 714 See Schlaifer (1943). 715 Carlier (1984) 330 note 32 re SEG 3.18. See now also on this decree Papazarkadas (2011) 23 with note 38. 162

mentionnât d‘abord la responsabilité du roi et ensuite seulement l'objet sur lequel elle s'exerce.‖ It also requires the assumption that the overall purpose of the decree was to do with the maintenance of the sanctuary. This assumption is not unreasonable, but it seems unlikely that the sample size and quality of extant Attic decrees can accommodate generalizations about what might be expected of them in regard to the ―habitudes de redaction‖ of their authors. Even if Carlier is correct we have nothing to indicate what constituted the precise responsibility of the βαζηιεύο.

B From Kreōn to Eukleidēs

(a) The Archon List

The archon list even for the Demosthenic period is largely unedifying. For the period Kreōn to Eukleidēs (403/2) in the list it is even more so. And for the period of the 6th century it gives the impression of Athens as having been ruled by a succession of ‗monarchs‘ able to hold on to power for varying periods, but showing the irregularity that might be expected of a monarchic system not able to be established as an hereditary succession. Why should it not be thought that that appearance is the reality? In fact, ‗historical‘ Athens up to Kleisthenēs centres on four men, who in the absence of any substantial history that Athens was being run by anyone else, appear to be monarchs—men whose political will apparently consistently prevailed. The archon list for the 5th century is contradicted by that history. In relation to the Peisistratid period, for example, we are expected to imagine an Athens deluding itself for decades that it was run by annually elected archons; and a Peisistratid family deluding itself for decades that Athens was run by them. Moreover, the 5th century archon list contradicts the orthodoxy in relation to Athens‘ constitutional history. Consider in that regard the record after Solon.716

So little is known about Drakōn that it suffices here simply to recall that essentially he is known only for his allegedly having the capacity to dictate the law. Not much more is known about Solon, but he is also known from a political perspective essentially for his capacity to determine how Athens should be organized. There would have been no place in his court for an

716 See Figueira (1984). 163

annual βαζηιεύο. A Solonian Athens with a βαζηιεύο would have had one ‗king‘ too many.717 Nor in the extant Solonic canon is there so much as a mention of an annual official of any sort, βαζηιεύο, archōn or otherwise. The canon is essentially about Solon, his excellence, and his claim, in effect, to have the capacity to exercise absolute political power.

What Solon‘s power justification narrative was is not clear: as far as is known it was not overtly based on divine endorsement. However, in the Peisistratids we may have a monarchy reaching for an overt theological power narrative.

(b) Peisistratos718

Thucydides claims that Peisistratos imposed a 5% tax.719 If this is true it should be concluded from the fact that the Peisistratid period has left no trace of any administrative apparatus for the collection and enforcement of such a tax that the administrative requirements were small. To think otherwise is to contemplate the presence in this period of harvest estimation, collection, and storage systems, organized by the state, along with state run systems of auditing and control generally—systems in relation to which there is no explanation for the want of any trace or record of them.720

The Ath. Pol. asserts that Peisistratos made loans to small farmers.721 If this is true, it is not inconsistent with a modest view of the size and complexity of Peisistratid Athens. But it is not likely to be true. It could not, for example, have been a large scale exercise, because the same sort of problems would arise with respect to the hypothesis that arose with respect to the 5% tax: there is no trace of any administrative system of grants and repayments. Besides, such a system would have required money, and as discussed below722 it is unlikely that money was used in the Peisistratid period, or at least that barter was a more likely a means of exchange for such exchange as there was. The Ath. Pol. could of course be referring to loans of things rather

717 Consider Sandys (1893) 7 in relation to the title βαζηιεύο: ―It is uncertain whether the president of the board of nine magistrates bore the title of Archon before the time of Solon. Probably up to that time the members of the board were called πξπηάλεηο and their president retained the ancient title of βαζηιεύο.‖ The use of the title ‗βαζηιεύο‘ is discussed further below at p. 215. 718 Amongst the more recent writing are Cawkwell (1995); Sancisi-Weerdenburg (2000); Lavelle (2005); and Munn (2006) passim. 719 Thucidydes, 6.54.5. 720 cf. Welwei (1992) 235-236. 721 Ath. Pol., 16.2. 722 pp. 207-208. 164

than of money. That is how Aelian interpreted the Ath. Pol. In his view the ‗loans‘ were bribes paid by Peisistratos in the form of seed or oxen to subversives in the Agora to keep them from plotting.723 Although the picture that this conjures is entirely consistent with the above proposed modest vision of Athens, overall it seems preferable to treat cum grano salis the story in the Ath. Pol. about loans by Peisistratos. Nor is any of the foregoing inconsistent with the absence of any evidence of a significant programme of public building works; an activity requiring substantial organizational skills, and human and financial resources.724

The idea that Peisistratos ruled side by side with an annually elected βαζηιεύο, the custodian of a legacy from the ancestral kings, if that is how the βαζηιεύο was perceived, is difficult to imagine. It is hardly likely that any ruler of Athens before the 5th century could afford not to be perceived as, and not to have himself cultivated as, having some inherited form of authority. In fact, according to Herodotus, the Peisistratids were the descendants of the house of Pylos and Neleus.725 It would hardly be tolerable to have around him an official claiming a better inheritance than his own, and wearing the title of it on a day to day basis. If the Athenians knew from Homer what ‗βαζηιεύο‘ could mean: ‗beloved of the gods‘, the title given to heroes like Achilles and Hector, mortals capable of the superhuman, characterized by arēte, it was for Peisistratos ―to reign appropriately after the manner of a Homeric basileus‖726 perhaps suitably attired in Κξεηηρόλ, βαζηιίδεο and ζηέθαλνο. If anyone bore the title of βαζηιεύο in Peisistratid Athens it would have been Peisistratos himself.727

As to Peisistratos and the ‗sacred marriage‘ of the ‗basilinna‘, Feaver referring to the 530s BCE said:

723 Aelian, 9.25. 724 For a summary of known Peisistratid building projects: Boersma (1970) 18-19. 725 Herodotus 5.65.3-4. See further Lavelle (2005) 18-19 and 24-27. Note Thucydides 6.54.6 implies the archonship coexisted with Peisistratos. 726 Lavelle (1995) 92. 727 Note, though long after Peisistratos, Eupolis 1fragment 17 in Photius, Lexicon, s.v. Κξεηηρόλ: ΠΔΗ΢Η΢ΣΡΑΣΟ΢? νὐ πάλὺ ηαρὺ / ῥίςαο ἐκνη ηνῦη‘ἀλαβαιεῖο ηὸ Κξεηηρὸλ Edmonds‘ translation is: ―PEISISTRATOS? Look sharp; take off this thing / And robe me in the cape kept for the King.‖ Edmonds (1957) Volume 1, 350-351. According to Pollux, 7.77, a cloak called a Κξεηηρόλ was worn by the annual βαζηιεύο in Athens.‖ The Κξεηηρόλ is referred to in Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae, 730. Hesychius says of the βαζηιίδεο: ὑπόδεκα γπλαηρεῖνλ, θαη αὐιεηηρόλ, ὣο ἖ξαηνζζέλεο, ἀπὸ ηνῦ βαζηιέσο ριεζέληνο (sic). It is not clear that Eratosthenes, even if he is correctly quoted, was referring to the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο. As for the crown, the Ath. Pol. refers to it at 57.4. 165

―It is difficult to determine why this ceremony became attached to the archon basileus and his wife rather than to the priest of Dionysos. It is tempting to conjecture that here we have another instance in which the sacerdotal privileges of an aristocratic priesthood were bypassed by Peisistratos, but the evidence is of course, too inconclusive.‖728

Of a similar view as to the date Humphreys allows that the ritual ―may go back to the sixth century‖ (emphasis added) but not that the ritual could have been a part of the pre-classical Anthesteria.729 She clearly considered the ritual in the classical period to be relatively recent. Furthermore,

―[i]f, as is usually assumed, the Anthesteria included a procession celebrating the wedding of Dionysos and the Basilinna, it would have resembled the ceremonial entry into Athens of Athena and Peisistratos by chariot after his first expulsion (Herodotus 1, 60). One might then think that Peisistratos had been inspired by the Anthesteria or that some enterprising basileus (during the tyranny or just after it?) decided to copy Peisistratos. However, the sources say nothing about a procession, and the idea should probably be dropped.‖730

What Humphries may have overlooked is the possibility that her ―enterprising basileus‖ could be one and the same with Peisistratos.

Yet the ritual marriage to Dionysos was seemingly a rite foreign in Greece. Indeed, Munn argues that the Athenian ritual was ―patterned after the rituals of power and sovereignty that were celebrated in Lydia.‖731 It is reasonable to consider the possibility that Peisistratos actually imported the practice to Athens as an annual reminder that the arranged marriage by him to Megacles‘ daughter was in fact ―for the tyranny‖732 Was it a wife of ‗βαζηιεύο

728 Feaver (1957) 133 and references. 729 Humphreys (2004) 237 and see note 119 at 270 on a possible implication for the procedures of the ritual if the ‗marriage‘ had always taken place in the Boukolion. 730 Humphreys (2004) 236. 731 Munn (2006) 176-177. 732 cf. Gernet (1968) 358, and also Munn (2006) 41. 166

Peisistratos‘ who was the first to play bride to Dionysos733 with all that that might have elevated the monarchic aspirations of Peisistratos? If Peisistratos was in some way responsible for the rescension of the Homeric poems, perhaps he also sought to be assimilated to the epic heroes, harbouring pretensions to being of exceptional status.734

Certainly, there is reason to think that the Athenians never really understood or appreciated the ritual marriage to Dionysos. Indeed, arguably Aristophanes parodies sacred marriage where he has Pisthetairos consummating his sovereignty by marriage with Basileia.735

It would not have been unknown in Athens that sacred marriage rituals engaged in by mortal rulers were ‗oriental‘, and even by the end of the 5th century there was not enough space between the Athenian experience with Persia for the Athenians not to be expected to have been at least sceptical.736

C Pre-Demosthenic Annual βαζηιεῖο

There is no record of any great historical role played by any of the annual βαζηιεῖο of the fifth century.

(a) Patrokles

Given the little we know of Phryomachos, when an identified βαζηιεύο enters the record in a way that allows us to say anything much about the person who occupied the office it is in relation to Patrokles (404/3). According to the ‗defendant‘ in Isocrates, Against Callimachus, Patrokles was the annual βαζηιεύο during the administration of the Ten in Athens; he was a

733 For a different perspective see now in regard to the wife of the βαζηιεύο, Rigoglioso (2009) passim, who in effect takes up a theme suggested by Kerényi (1976) 310 note 121, referring to the wife of the Athenian βαζηιεύο: ―it was probably she who had borne the title βαζηιίλλα, ‗queen,‘ from time immemorial, and it was probably because of her that the ἄξρσλ βαζηιεύο retained the title ‗king‘. G. M. Macurdy comes to an erroneous conclusion . . .‖ Macurdy (1928) argued that there is inadequate evidence that the wife of the βαζηιεύο had the title th βαζίιίλλα before the 4 century BCE. 734 de Polignac (1995) 129-130 referring to the appearance from the 8th century of ―royal tombs‖ in Greece and rich grave goods makes the albeit highly speculative argument: ―The rise of these new customs testifies to a desire on the part of certain basileis to be assimilated to the epic heroes through their adoption of the epic model, transmitted principally by the Iliad.‖ See in regard to the Peisistratids and Homer, Andersen (2011) and Nagy (2011) 113. 735 Birds, 1727-1730. cf. Munn (2006) 39-40. 736 See Herodotus 1.181-182 where he records such practices in Babylon, Egypt and Lycia. 167

friend of the defendant and an enemy of Kallimachos.737 That Patrokles had arguably been βαζηιεύο during the administration of the Thirty,738 and therefore presumably in favour with the Thirty, did not restrain him, if the story in Isocrates is true, from coming to the aid of a ‗democrat‘ Pamphilos739 by apprehending Kallimachos in the street and directing abuse (ινηδνξία) at him for being in possession of money that belonged to the people; money which had some unstated connection with Pamphilos. The immediate outcome of this was a pleading by Patrokles to Rhinē, a member of the Ten who happened to be passing by. In the end, Patrokles and Kallimachos were brought before the Ten. They in turn referred the matter to the boulē with the result that the money was declared the property of the people. Kallimachos then sued Patrokles, and extracted from Patrokles a settlement of ten minas of silver. Kallimachos is maligned in the Speech as in effect a fellow-traveller with the Thirty, even though it was the Thirty who the plaintiff in the speech alleges were ultimately responsible for Kallimachos‘ woes.740 In the Speech Isocrates has Patrokles promoting himself as a friend of the people, and faithful in his duties when a trierarch, for which he claims he received public honours.741

All we can do in relation to this Speech, having regard to the reservations in general referred to in the Introduction about the forensic speeches, is to note that it seems that the annual βαζηιεύο in the last decade of the 5th century was of not of such status as not to be able to be referred to in terms making him seem undistinguished and even commonplace. In the case of Patrokles, the annual βαζηιεύο is portrayed as in effect not above street-brawling.

Yet at a time at least broadly contemporaneous with the known Pre-Demosthenic βαζηιεῖο, Plato says of the office:

παξ‘ ὑκῖλ νὐρ ἥθηζηα δ῅ινλ ὃ ιέγσ· ηῶ γὰξ ιαρόληη βαζηιεῖ θαζηλ ηῆδε ηὰ ζεκλόηαηα θαὶ κάιηζηα πάηξηα η῵λ ἀξραίσλ ζπζη῵λ ἀπνδεδόζζαη.742

737 Isocrates, 18.5. 738 See also Krentz (1982) 58 arguing that Patrokles would also have been the βαζηιεύο under the rule of the Thirty. 739 That Pamphilos was a ‗democrat‘ is inferred from his being described as having been one of the exiles in Piraeus: Isocrates 18.2 and 18.5. 740 For example Isocrates 18.48. 741 Isocrates 18.59-61. 742 Statesman 290e. 168

(b) The ‗Eligibility‘ of Andokidēs

Lysias Against Andocides743 purports to describe the duties of the βαζηιεύο in relation to the Mysteries: performance of sacrifices, saying prayers (εὔρνκαη) on behalf of the κύζηαη in accordance with ancestral custom (ραηὰ ηὰ πάηξηα), and performing some administrative role (ἐπηκειένκαη) aimed at the prevention of wrongdoing (ἀδηθέσ) or impiety (ἀζεβέσ).744 These assertions are made in the context of an argument that asserts by implication the importance of good character in the incumbent of the office of βαζηιεύο.745 Yet Ἀλδνθίδεο, purportedly notorious for acts of impiety, for which apparently he had suffered conviction and incarceration, was apparently not ineligible for the draw for selection of the nine archons.

There can be no reasonable doubt that Onēsippos was a βαζηιεὺο. The herm base that bears his name is inscribed as follows (with restoration indicated):

὆λήζηππνο Αἰηίν Κεθηζηεὺο βαζηιεὺο ἀλέζεθε[λ] ν[ἵδ]ε ὆λήζηππν βαζηιεύνληνο ρνξεγõληεο ἐλίθσλ

Κσκσηδ῵λ ηξαγσηδ῵λ ΢σζηθξάηεο ἐρνξήγε ραιθνπώιεο ΢ηξαηόληθνο ἐρνξήγε ΢ηξάησλνο Νηθνράξεο ἐδίδαζθε Μεγαθιείδεο ἐδίδαζθε 746

Onēsippos is only known to us by reason of this inscription, but it has been argued that the inscription suggests he was accorded a special honour in that the present participle βαζηιεύνληνο has been used, instead of the aorist βαζηιεύζαο found on other herm bases. Shear believed that all three of the herm bases set up by annual βαζηιεῖο and found in the 1970 Agora excavations were set up ―in the term of their magistracy.‖747 However, Edmondson refers to an

743 Lysias 6.4-6.5. MacDowell (1989) 13-14 dates the Speech to about 400 BCE. For general background see MacDowell (1989) 1-29. See also Furley (1989) and Missiou (2007) 15-54. 744 Carlier (1984) 331 claims that from this we can reconstruct the initiation rites in relation to the Mysteries performed by the βαζηιεῖο on 15 Boedromion at the Stoa Poikile in the agora. Carlier‘s reconstruction is clearly speculative not least because: ―L'ordre suivi par le Pseudo-Lysias n'est pas nécessairement l‘ordre chronologique.‖ 745 Good character for office is central also in Lysias 26, in which there is mention of the office of βαζηιεύο at 26.8, and in Lysias 31, Against Philon. On Lysias 26 see Sealey (1993) 17-18, and on Lysias 31 see Goldstein (1972). 746 The Onēsippos herm base is published in Shear (1970) 256-257. 747 Shear (1971) 256. The other two herm bases, those of Exēkestidēs and Miltiadēs are published in Shear (1971) 257-258. 169

alleged law revealed by Aeschines which, Edmondson claims, ―prohibited citizens in office from making dedications.‖748 Edmondson thus concluded that Onēsippos had been accorded the ―unusual‖ honour of being permitted to dedicate the herm while still in office. But a review of the passage in Aeschines indicates that the law, if it existed at the date of the Onēsippos inscription, indeed if it existed at any time, was directed to stop officials in office from selling or encumbering their assets, and so avoiding the consequences of an adverse finding in their euthyna. There is no obvious point in a law that would have prevented the sort of dedication we see with Onēsippos‘ herm.749

The Onēsippos herm is different from the other two found nearby it in the Agora excavations, those of Exēkestidēs and Miltiadēs, in that their elaboration goes to the identification of the respective paredroi of the βαζηιεῖο. On the other hand they are later than Onēsippos‘ herm, Miltiadēs perhaps as late as the 2nd century BCE, and it is simply not possible to make generalizations as to what was usual or not usual with such a small extant sample, the items in the sample being separated by years at least, and even many generations.750

As Sōsikrαtēs was probably a metic the festival in respect of which the dedication was made would probably not have been the great Dionysia, but a lesser festival, the Dionysia Epilenaia. If the position set out in the Ath. Pol. (57.1) was true at the date of the Onēsippos herm, the βαζηιεύο would have had some responsibility in relation to the festival.

Shear dates this herm on the assumption that that Nikocharēs is synonymous with the known comic poet of that name, a contemporary of Aristophanes, ―who competed unsuccessfully against the Ploutos in 388 B.C., and who may have won a victory at the Lenaia as early as about 412/1 B.C.‖751 Edmondson argues for 403 BCE on grounds relating to the political

748 Edmondson (1981) 49. Aeschines 3.21. 749 See also Pickard-Cambridge (1988) 360-361 and references in regard to the date, which the authors place in the 4th century. 750 See Shear (1971) 255-256 and Harpokration, s.v. ἗ξκαῖ referring to the large number of herms in the vicinity of the Royal Stoa. It might be wondered if the reference to ‗a forest of idols‘ in Acts of the Apostles, Verse 16, relates to this: see Wycherley (1968) 619-621. See p. 265 below in regard to the Exēkestidēs herm bases. 751 Shear (1971) 257 and references. 170

climate at that time, and speculation in regard to a play by Nikocharēs concerning the demos and citizenship.752

D Conclusion to this Chapter

The annual Athenian βαζηιεύο enters history unambiguously only in the second half of the 5th century. He presents as having some role in respect of public lands, and public ritual activity, and as a figure participating in the public life of the city. But we cannot from the pre- Demosthenic record give anything like a detailed picture of the office, or of its functions, or the usual character of its incumbents. It is pertinent to query whether the office was fully established before the mid-5th century. That is further considered in the next chapter.

752 Edmondson (1981) 49-50. 171

CHAPTER FIVE From Kreōn to Onēsippos – Part Two: The Known Socio-Economic Context

CONTENTS

A Athens and the Greek Renaissance 172

(a) Hyperbole and Extrapolation 172

(b) Archaic Athens—A Very Dark-Grey Age 177

B Theories of State Formation in Athens 177

C Why the polis and not monarchy? 182

D Mycenaean Athens to Classical Athens: Discontinuity or Transformation? 185

E Political Space in Archaic Athens 188

(a) Population 189

(b) The Geographic Size of Athens 193

(i) Athens and the Acropolis 193

(ii) Unification 195

(iii) Athens and Attica 198

(i) Building 201

(ii) Economic Activity 207

(iii) Judicial Activity 209

(d) The External Environment 210

F Conclusion to this Chapter 212 172

CHAPTER FIVE From Kreōn to Onēsippos – Part Two: The Socio-Economic Context βαζηι῅εο κὲλ γὰξ ἀεὶ ἡκῖλ εἰζηλ.753

A Athens and the Greek Renaissance

(a) Hyperbole and Extrapolation

In 1971 Snodgrass referred to what he called ―the Greek renaissance‖ and pondered its starting point:

―For me, the decisive moment comes when the Greek world can be seen to be moving forward as a whole; when the beneficial or disruptive developments in one centre are swiftly reflected in most parts of central and southern Greece, in the islands and in Ionia. Such a state of affairs cannot be detected before the beginning of the eighth century; yet it is patently in existence before its end. Whatever category of progress we choose, there is little doubt that the years around the mid-eighth century witnesses many of the decisive developments.‖754 (Emphasis in original).

The word ‗renaissance‘ in the present context does not sit comfortably with everyone. Burkert eschewed use of the word and preferred to think in terms of ―a re-emergence of a complete society‖.755 Schäfer elided the problem of using the word ‗renaissance‘. Thus: ―I think we can keep the term Renaissance since we are dealing with what I would call in German ‗eine bewusste Beziehung auf die Vergangenheit‘.‖756

In any event, Snodgrass nominates and addresses categories of the progress he postulates: ―colonization‖, ―representational art‖, ―regionalization‖, ―intercommunication‖, ―sacred and domestic architecture‖, and finally, what he alleges was the development of ―an historical consciousness in poetry and art‖.757

753 Plato, Menexenus, 238d. 754 Snodgrass (1971/2001) 436. 755 Burkert (1983b) 208. 756 Schäfer (1983) 208. 757 Snodgrass (1971/2001) 416-436. 173

It is evident from the very few references Snodgrass makes to Athens in relation to his categories that if there was a renaissance in Athens he gives no real evidence of it. For example, Geometric pottery at Delphi does not prove any contacts between Athens and Delphi contemporaneous or otherwise, let alone ‗firm contacts‘ (Snodgrass‘ description).758 All he specifically referred to for Athens is what he called ―an Early Helladic house‖ (next to which in the later Geometric a cult-building was constructed)759 and some wells in the area of the classical Agora.760 He referred to Athenian pictorial vases but only in the context just mentioned above of the development in Greece of an historical consciousness in poetry and art which he implicitly acknowledged was in its nature highly speculative.761

Thus, when analysed, Snodgrass‘ survey of Greece proves to be very thin as a basis for the assertion that his conclusions for Greece applied to Athens. Nor does this discount the consensus that Athens was largely unique in being continuously occupied from Mycenaean times, and that Attic pottery (including Athenian) had a uniquely prominent place in post- Mycenaean Greece.

By 1980 Snodgrass was seeing 8th century change in structural terms having its origins in population growth, manifesting as state formation in the form of poleis, and as developments in the arts and religion.762

Substituting ‗revolution‘ for ‗renaissance‘ to describe the changes, Morris gave a revised survey in 2009 of what in his view happened in the 8th century.763 His broad categories are Economics, Social Structures, and Culture. He argues that population grew in the eighth century ―everywhere from Iran to Iberia.‖764 He guesses that in Greece, ―defined as the Aegean basin and its overseas colonies,‖765 population doubled on average in the eighth century and that therefore either poverty increased dramatically; there was redistribution of resources; new resources were deployed; productivity increased; and/ or, there was massive social dislocation.

758 Snodgrass (1971/2001) 419 759 Snodgrass (1971/2001) 423, and also 398 and see Burr (1933) 542-640. 760 Snodgrass (1971/2001) 429. 761 Snodgrass ((1971/2001) 429-436. 762 Snodgrass (1980) 15-84. 763 Morris (2009) 64-80. For the scepticism see the references, loc. cit. 764 Morris (2009) 66. 765 Morris (2009) 66. 174

Morris then argues that ―[t]hree broad categories of response were available: intensification, extensification and reorganization.‖766 He seems to rule out increased productivity, or at least to argue that there is no sound evidence of it.767 As for extensification he refers to evidence of resettlement both internal and by way of colonization. In this context he refers to the appearance of new settlements in inland Attica, contrasting the coastal focus of Dark Age settlement there.768 As for reorganization, Morris mentions Attica, but only to say that reorganization did not happen there: ―in 7th century Attica aristocratic Eupatridai apparently held most land, with the poor working it as share croppers, lacking secure property rights (Aristotle, Constitution of Athens 2.2).‖769

Morris does not mention either Athens or Attica in his discussion of living standards, which in any event he vaguely and ambiguously relates to morbidity, nutritional stress, physical injuries, house sizes and quality of construction.770

In his summary of his ―Economics‖ category of change Morris in effect admits that he has no sound evidence for revolution in respect of that category for Greece (let alone specifically for Attica or Athens)771 and he falls back on Renfrew‘s model of 1972 which Morris renders as follows:

―Technological, institutional, and legal subsystems all reacted, feeding back on each other to maintain balance, and triggering further responses in political and symbolic subsystems.‖772

That sounds very impressive, but what it has specifically to do with Athens is not stated.

In respect of Morris‘ second category, ―Social Structures‖, the evidence for revolution in Athens is no better. There is some archaeological evidence, but as Morris admits in the context of referring to state formation, ―[a]rchaeology cannot provide direct evidence for political

766 Morris (2009) 67. 767 Morris (2009) 67 768 Morris (2009) 68 769 Morris (2009) 68. This is an opportunity to recall that the author of the Ath. Pol. was writing as much as three centuries after the period Morris refers to. 770 Morris (2009) 69. 771 ‗[T]he details are unclear‘: Morris (2009) 70. 772 Morris (2009) 70 referring to Renfrew (1972). 175

institutions.‖773 Again Morris retreats from ‗revolution: ―compared to most ancient states, eighth century Greek organizations were very weak‖ 774 and ―[p]ut simply, states did not do much except keep the peace, call up the army for war, and spend windfall profits on temples. Even organizing colonial ventures may have been largely in private hands.‖775 Referring to Athens, Morris argues that the challenges and opportunities for political initiative were ―probably‖ greater there (and in other places where population grew substantially) given that the population in Athens ―grew from almost nothing to several thousand people in the eighth century.‖776 In a second reference to Athens, Morris suggests not revolution but resistance, or counterrevolution. Thus, instability was evident in Athens: ―[r]efusal to surrender offices remained a problem into the sixth century (e.g. Aristotle, Constitution of Athens, 13.2).‖777

But why did Morris‘ central Aegean Greece move toward male citizenship rather than, as in the rest of his Greece, toward kingship and the centralization of wealth and power? In relation to this Morris posits four variables, ‗history‘, ‗economics‘, ‗war‘ and ‗religion‘, which will be considered further below.778 For the present, it should be noted that there is an irony in this question in respect of Athens in that it is arguably the case that if population increases were reflected in political change in the 7th century it was precisely in the centralization of wealth and power. In other words Athens behaved like Morris‘ non-Aegean Greece. If on the score of Morris‘ second category ‗Social Structures‘ there was a revolution in Athens, it was not the revolution that Morris argues for in respect of the rest of central Aegean Greece; it was a counterrevolution, and the continuation or resumption of monarchy, whether as ‗paramount basilēes‘ or otherwise.

In respect of his third category Morris refers to ―an explosion of cultural innovation,‖ evidence of ―feverish energy‖ and ―frenzied building.‖779 In his only specific reference here to Athens, Morris says that ―around 750 Athenians pioneered the use of human figures.‖780 He then goes

773 Morris (2009) 71. 774 Morris (2009) 70 supporting Trigger (2003). 775 Morris (2009) 72. 776 Morris (2009) 71. 777 Morris (2009) 72. 778 Morris (2009) 73-75. 779 Morris (2009) 77. 780 Morris (2009) 78. 176

on immediately and properly to say that ―[e]verything about these scenes [in Greek figured art including Athenian] remains controversial.‖781 Again, in his reference to the development of literacy, Morris properly admits to its earliest appearance as poetic, and usually as ―one or two lines (mostly hexameters) scratched on pots.‖782

The subject of the present work is Athens, not Greece. It is of no help and potentially misleading to draw on generalizations about Greece, such as the generalizations in the above excursuses of Snodgrass and Morris or, for example, in statements such as ―the construction of temples, the new spatial organization of cities and cemeteries, and the pattern of dedications in sanctuaries suggests a new ordering of community in the eighth century B.C.‖783 and ―[t]he eighth century appears as a time of transition toward a more collective definition and arrangement of community space.‖784 In respect of both these statements we may ask ―what community?‖ The descriptions do not fit what is reliably known of Athens in the eighth century BCE, at least not to a degree that permits the stated conclusions to be safely drawn in respect of that community—assuming there was a community in Athens, in the sense of Burkert‘s ―complete society‖,785 or something approaching it, in the eighth century BCE warranting the title.

It is apparent that not infrequently accounts are given of 8th century Greece that are a composition of different developments of a variety of kinds in disparate locations, but creating the impression that what is described for the whole is equally applicable to the various parts. Such pastiches are in the nature of a legerdemain.786 And theories or models based on such pastiches arouse a suspicion that the theory or model has an eye on what are thought to be known facts about what the theory or the model is supposed to predict. This is not just in the general sense, such as for example in relation to state formation, the assumption that states

781 Morris (2009) 78. 782 Morris (2009) 77. 783 Lenz (1993) 340. 784 Hammer (2003) 32. However, note Hammer, loc cit., 33: ―Summarizing the growing list of Dark Age developments, though, risks overstating the uniformity of characteristics between communities and the completeness of these characteristics in any one community.‖ cf. Finley (1975) 62-3 regarding generalization in relation to the word ‗Greek‘ whether as noun or adjective. 785 See above p. 172. 786 cf. Coady (1992) 239: ―[N]o amount of exercise of self-assertion can turn bad or irrelevant evidence into good and pertinent evidence or convert fantasy into fact.‖ 177

must form, but also and more significantly, in specific cases such as that the theory or model must satisfy a description of 7th century to late 6th century Athens as a self-reproducing political organism because of what we think we know from much later writing, in particular the Ath. Pol., of the political history of that period.

Was it the case (as is implied by the archon list and the traditional account of post Mycenaean Athens) that by about 800 BCE Athens was constituted by a community persisting in space and time underpinned by ―impersonal, relatively permanent political institutions.‖?787 Or was Athens still pre-institutional, a place able to be described politically as a succession of alliances led at any given time by whoever happened to be the head of a prevailing dominant family?788

(b) Archaic Athens—A Very Dark Grey Age

The broad context of what follows is the fact that the history of Athens in the archaic period is in important respects opaque. Hence, if we jettison Herodotus and the Ath. Pol., and the other later sources, as reliable sources of historical fact, we have a stark choice: ―make up our own story by combining archaeological evidence with what we suppose we know about human nature and Greek society, or . . . admit that early Athenian history is unknowable‖.789 In making this statement Ober opined wryly, and presumably he did not mean to leave out Homer and Hesiod as historical sources. In any event, it is necessary to a sober view of archaic Athens to take a conservative view of Homer and Hesiod and of the archaeological evidence.

B Theories of State Formation in Athens

In the traditional account, at the time of the partitioning of the monarchy the archōn is portrayed as in the early 7th century in effect becoming the ‗head of state‘. Was Athens a state in the early 7th century, or at any time before the end of the 6th century? At one extreme a state can be conceived of as certain institutions, legal/political/social, that are recognized as indicating its existence. This seems to be the conception of the author of the Ath Pol. and, for instance, of Runciman:

787 cf. Strayer (1970) 5-6 in relation to Strayer‘s definition of a state. 788 cf. the rhetorical construction in Anderson (1973) 20. 789 Ober (1997) 72. Ober, in general, has faith in Herodotus and the Ath. Pol., but Raaflaub given his relevant views of both sources was inclined to accept the possibility that early Athenian history is indeed unknowable: Raaflaub (1997c) 87-88. 178

―a state will have been formed when the community that constitutes it has an established central governing authority supported by permanent and specialist administrators‖790 and of Tilly:

―Let us define states as coercion–wielding organizations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise clear priority over all other organizations within substantial territories.‖791

At the other extreme it can be conceived of as simply the people who lawfully and permanently occupy specified geographical boundaries. Aristotle‘s definition of the polis as a θνησλία πνιηη῵λ792 is a definition within this conception (and thus inconsistent with the implied conception in the Ath. Pol.), and the notion that the polis was a ‗stateless society‘ is within the spirit of this conception.793

In between these extremes is a range of conceptions that involve descriptions of the interaction between institutions and people. The state conceived of at either of the extremes gives no scope for analysis; all that can be done is to make lists of institutions or of people.794 If a state is to be defined by reference to the interaction of institutions with people there is scope for objective and subjective descriptions of interaction involving assessment of such interactions against outcomes considered desirable by observers of the state, or by the state‘s inhabitants. At a basic level the interaction has to be one of acceptance. A state has not come into existence until (a), it has permanent institutions that are perceived by its citizens as serving their interests as a whole, and not solely the interests of those who exercise power; and (b), such institutions are capable of evolving and adapting. This definition allows for the reality that in any community the institutions will tend to favour the interests of those exercising power, and that in any community interests will be continually changing, thus requiring its institutions to evolve and

790 Runciman (1982) 353. 791 Tilly (1990) 1. 792 Politics, 3.1276b2 793 See Berent (2000); Hansen (2002) and (2000). See in general on Aristotle‘s theory of the state, Johnson (1990). 794 When it deals with the contemporaneous ‗constitution‘ the Ath. Pol. tends to be a mere catalogue. 179

adapt. It is against this background that it is proposed review the issue of state formation at Athens.795

Runciman claimed to see the critical transition to statehood in the changed meaning of designations of authority. Thus,

the aisymnētēs moves from something in the nature of an umpire in the Odyssey (8.258) to a governmental official found in Mytilene, Megara, Teos, and Kyme;

the dēmos of Homer comes to mean the fully political damioi of Dreros of Crete;

the xenia or ‗guest friendship‘ of Homer becomes the proxenia that designates a consular role;

the word βαζηιεύο found in Homer as the designation of actual basileis who performed roles of the sort the Homeric βαζηιεύο performed, becomes the designation of the later annual official. Hence: ―The role of basileus did, to be sure, survive the transition to statehood. But it then became one governmental role among several, as in Sparta, or retained only its ritual authority, as in Athens‖;796

‗Thesmothetai‘ moves from designating lawgivers to designating ―a body of junior archons specially charged with collating and systematizing the laws (Aristotle, Constitution of Athens 111.4.).‖797

For Runciman the formation of a state requires that an accumulation of economic, charismatic and coercive power in its leaders has reached a critical mass, a term that Runciman did not define. Each source of power is a necessary condition although insufficient on its own. He purported to apply his theory to Athens, which he asserted was, for the purpose, with Sparta, the ―best documented of all [Greek states]‖.798 Thus, ―if Cylon had succeeded, he would have

795 In respect of generalized theories such as the Indo-European sequence of family, tribe and state of Fustel de Coulanges (now out of favour), and the war theory of Caneiro (who did not specifically address Athens, although there seems to be no historical foundation in respect of Athens anyway), see Fustel de Coulanges (1864), Caneiro (1981)Morgan (1978b) chapter 4, and Becker (1950) 309-339. 796 Runciman (1982) 358. 797 Runciman (1982) 360. 798 Runciman (1982) 373. There can of course be a yawning chasm between the word ‗best‘ as in ‗best documented‘ and the word ‗well‘ as in ‗well documented‘. 180

secured for himself just as much of a headship of state as Cypselus did at Corinth.‖799 However, Runciman asserted without any evidence that Athens was by the end of the 8th century the governing centre of an Attica-wide state800 referring to the ―life tenure of a . . . ritual kingship.‖801 Crucially, we simply do not know that there was a life-tenured ritual kingship, whatever that is, in Athens, and if there was, we do not know when the institution of annual βαζηιεύο devolved from it, if it did. And it is especially difficult to see how a life tenured ―ritual kingship‖ could have had anything to do with a Homeric βαζηιεύο in respect of whom there is no indication of life-tenureship, or any firm tenureship, and no clear connection with ritual.802 Runciman made no effort at all to show with particularity in respect of each of his variables when or how an accumulation of economic, charismatic and coercive power in Athens‘ leaders reached Runciman‘s critical mass.

Unlike Runciman Morris refers to real, albeit debatable, evidence. For him the burial record in Athens shows that after 700 BCE, and by distinct contrast to what had developed by 750 BCE, the best in Athens, whom Morris designates ―the agathoi‖, were buried differently from the rest, whom he designates ―the kakoi‖. After 700 the kakoi were excluded from formal cemeteries.803 From that he argued, in effect, that the cemeteries of Athens after 700 BCE, and until the end of the 6th century BCE, speak of a socio/political inequality of citizens that is not consistent with the polis ideal having existed in Athens at the time. Athens of the 7th century was considered by Morris to be a ―reactionary state.‖804 Its progression to becoming a full polis suffered retardation or diversion from the path which by 750 it was on to become a full blown polis.805 Morris clearly conceived of the polis in Athens as having been preceded by ―a non-

799 Runciman (1982) 375. 800 Runciman (1982) 374. 801 Runciman (1982) 802 As discussed at pp. 80ff. above. 803 Morris (1987) 175. 804 Morris (1987) especially chapter 10. 805 Morris (1987) 205. See, id., (2000) 155-191, and (2009) 71, where he distinguishes what he calls ―middling ideology‖ and ―elitist ideology.‖ He argues, that it is the former, where all men (free non-foreign males) perceive themselves to be the same, and all others different, that leads to the polis. It is the latter, he argues, to which Athens reverted. Thus Athens‘ progression to the polis was delayed. 181

polis state form.‖806 Not until about the end of the 6th century could the agathoi/kakoi division be dissolved with the burden of labour shifted onto the shoulders of slaves. A polis needed an economically exploitable class of non citizens with no political rights—it needed ―large scale chattel slavery of the Classical type.‖ 807

In regard to the use of burial data to establish social stratification Morris gives instances from modern societies of what he called the ―archaeologist‘s nightmare‖: cultural practices involving disinterment of highest ranked individuals followed by cremation and scattering of ashes onto the sea, so leaving a burial record only of the poorest members of the community.808 Burial records have numerous inherent limitations as evidence, and Morris does not of course seek to reconstruct from the burial record the detailed trajectory of political development in archaic Athens. His analysis throws no light specifically on why, how and when the institution of the annual βαζηιεύο developed in Athens.

Lenz argued largely, but not entirely, ex Homero that 8th and 7th century Greece was characterized by local hierarchies headed by βαζηιεῖο.809 The βαζηιεῖο coalesced to form oligarchies headed in some cases by a βαζηιεύο as primus inter pares. These oligarchies dominated archaic Greek states well into the sixth century BCE. The leading βαζηιεύο as head of a council of βαζηιεῖο had a religious role and constituted a type of consultative kingship. Out of this emerged in the course of time a regularization of offices by reference to their respective scope and term followed by the institutional control of the rulers. The state thus evolved out of and ―not at the expense of, oligarchies and kingships.‖810 According to Lenz, a state, which he defined, like Runciman, as ―a society with formal institutionalized governmental roles‖811 did not emerge in Athens earlier than Solon. Indeed, Lenz can be read as expressly supporting

806 See for his use of this phrase Morris (1987) 171. Morris postulates a ‗false dawn‘ in the 8th century, but his analysis in respect of the 8th and 7th centuries is susceptible of criticism. Indeed, Osborne described it as ―distressing‖! See Osborne (1989) 315 and note 41. 807 Morris (1987) 178, and see in general, 173-179. 808 Morris (1987) 93-94. 809 Lenz (1993) 350. 810 Lenz (1993) 353. 811 This is the narrow extreme definition referred to above by which the state is in effect conceived of as simply a collection of governmental institutions. Contrary to Lenz (1993) 352 it is difficult to see how such a conception can be a ‗working definition‘. 182

Morris, suggesting that the Athenian polis ‗as a state‘ did not emerge until the end of the 6th century BCE.812

However, Lenz does not explain why the institutions constituting Athens a state were formed. The more obvious development from his paradigm, at least from an intuitive perspective, would have been the progression of the primus inter pares to ‗primus absolutus‘. Indeed, given the emphasis of Lenz on the religious aspects of the βαζηιεύο we have to ask why his model would not make a theocracy rather than a polis a more likely outcome for Athens.

Indeed, this is the broader context of the present discussion: the trajectory of Morris‘ ‗Aegean Greece‘ away from centralization of power—why the polis and not monarchy, and given the polis and not monarchy, why the βαζηιεύο?

C Why the polis and not monarchy?813

The first of six factors listed by Raaflaub was the absence of absolute monarchy, and its reliance on subordination and obedience thus:

―Erstens war die griechische Gesellschaft nicht von einem sakralen und absoluten Königtum dominiert. Im Gegensatz zu den zentralisierten monarchischen Staaten im Vorderen Orient waren deshalb und Gehorsam nicht die Haupttugenden in der sich herausbildenden Polis.‖814

Morris argues that history, economics, available war technology, and religion were against the formation of a such a monarchy.815 Hence, by 750 BCE a legacy of elite homogeneity constituted ―a serious ideological barrier for men tying to centralize power in their own hands.‖816 He gives no hard evidence of this and no reason why the Greeks should have been exceptional in this regard.817 It implicitly dismisses the traditional king-lists, and in respect of

812 Lenz (1993) 346-347. 813 For the trajectory of political thought in Archiac Greece see Starr (1961), Qviller (1981), Raaflaub (1989), Raaflaub (2004) 34-36 and Raaflaub and Wallace (2007). See also in general O‘Neill (1995) and Robinson (1997). 814 Raaflaub (1989) 28. The other five factors were: territorial decentralization; an ambitious aristocracy; rapid social change; the necessity of innovation in crises resolution; and, dissatisfaction with aristocratic leadership. However, see now Raaflaub and Wallace (2007) 815 Morris (2009) 73-75. 816 Morris (2009) 74. 817 See in this regard the examples given by Morris (2009) of the contemporaneous developments in the western and eastern Mediterranean. 183

Athens, it is contradicted by the history, such as it is, of figures like Drakōn, Solon and Peisistratos, who were surely more than merely primi inter pares.

Next Morris argues: ―The richest eighth–century Greeks may simply have lacked the wherewithal to set themselves above rivals who wanted to keep them in check.‖818 However, it is counterintuitive to think that there were none trying. This is an explanation for the political instability in Athens that Morris acknowledges, rather than an explanation for the want of a tendency to centralization of power.

In respect of war, Morris argues: ―in the seventh and sixth centuries there was no scope for super-warriors to slice their way through citizen armies, and this had probably been true for several centuries previously.‖819 This assumes there were citizen armies. That issue in respect of Athens is considered below.820

Finally, Morris refers to religion: ―We should probably assume that Dark Age basileis claimed privileged access to the gods, and that many Greeks accepted this.‖821 But on what basis should we make such an assumption? Are we to assume that each member of Morris‘ egalitarian elite was a basileus, claiming privileged access to the gods, each claim being a different sort of privilege? If only one was privileged, or was more privileged in some way than the rest, he would surely be a focus for the concentration of power.

Furthermore, institutional arrangements tend to be inertial. Bendix expressed the point as follows in relation to the effect of kingship: ―Every country develops its own culture and social structure, but once the basic pattern of institutions is formed under circumstances of early kingship, it is difficult to change.‖822 In respect of postulated significant changes in socio- political arrangements we are entitled to enquire as to what we are to take to have been the relevant socio-political equivalents of those unbalancing forces that Newton said were necessary to explain a disruption of inertia.

818 Morris (2009). 819 Morris (2009) 75. 820 pp. 210-212. 821 Morris (2009) 75. 822 Bendix (1978) 3. It should be noted that Bendix has come under some criticism: see Rueschemeyer (1984)154- 156. 184

What embodied the inertia? According to Hölscher Athens under the wanax was a Weberian Fürstenstadt; a socio-economic arrangement of craft manufacture and trade centred on the palace atop the Acropolis. He claims that cults identified over a millennium later by Pausanias ―must date back to Mycenaean times‖ and their location ―clearly reveal their subordination to the center, that is, the palace.‖823 He does not descend to detail in respect of these claims. In any event, he goes on to argue that at some time after the Mycenaean period, and after accumulated ―small steps,‖ the Fürstenstadt became a Weberian Marktstadt, a ruler independent market economy. Political power became decentralized. As population increased (a process ―[b]eginning already in the eleventh century‘)824 settlement dispersement occurred and ―[p]robably in the eighth century, all of Attica was united in a process that as synoikismos received a quasi-mythical interpretation.‖825

What happened to the wanax? Hölscher says: ―The palace must have been given up; some sub- Mycenaean tombs might indicate a short period of settlement, but after that for two centuries the citadel yields no finds . . .‖826

But having said that, Hölscher refers to the tradition that has Erechtheus and his successors living on the Acropolis until Aigeus made his residence close to the Ilissos to the south east, and the similar tradition in respect to Eleusis and its acropolis. Was the palace ―given up‖ or was it simply relocated? Hölscher submits that any relocation was to make the king co-resident with aristocratic families consistent with ―the king‘s position as a primus inter pares, as it can be discerned in the Homeric epics.‖

But for Hölscher it is not merely a relocation; it is a ―shift from a life-long rule of a king . . . to the colleges of magistrates with shorter tenure.‖827 Hölscher gives no hint as to why we should think that the ‗religious‘ traditions were preserved, including the cult of the palace goddess,828 but that the tradition of kingship was not. It is as if we are to think that it casually faded away. It would be a different story if the argument was that there had been a collapse of

823 Hölscher (1991) 357 and loc. cit. note 6 for references. 824 Hölscher (1991) 358. 825 Hölscher (1991) 358. 826 Hölscher (1991) 358 and Immerwahr (1971) 154. 827 Hölscher (1991) 358-359. 828 Hölscher (1991) 358. 185

Mycenaean Athens that was followed by an interregnum during which all memory of prior traditions had been lost. This is not the argument, and it would be a difficult argument anyway. It would have to counter arguments for continuity, not just of cult and aspects of language, but also, for example, archaeological evidence suggesting continuity from the Mycenaean period of cultivation of staples and the associated techniques.829

D Mycenaean Athens to Classical Athens: Discontinuity or Transformation?

We have no evidence for a proposition that Mycenaean Athens (if for the purposes of the argument we presume there was a Mycenaean Athens) became a collapsed state or a failed state. But even if there was an apparent failed or collapsed Mycenaean Athens, whatever followed it can be presumed to have borne at least some of its characteristics.830 Those characteristics will act as a constraint on what is possible in the social formation that follows, and they will determine the trajectory of change thereafter. Thus, the post-Mycenaean period is better perceived in social transformational terms rather than as a discontinuity with the transformation involving the expression of characteristics of Mycenaean social forms. Indeed, Morris argues from archaeology that ―a considerable degree of social hierarchy survived the twelfth century catastrophes.‖831 But Morris also adds that ―it was certainly not predictable that the general evolution of the state should have the specific form of the polis.‖832 It should be recalled here also that the egalitarianism that Morris recognized in the 8th century burial record had been displaced in the 7th by hierarchy. If Athens had had origins in a Mycenaean monarchy it had resumed the trajectory that can be expected having regard to those origins.

The specific form of the polis in Athens included the institution of the nine archons with the βαζηιεύο being traditionally characterized as a vestigial priest king. This is not a mere transformation; it is a discontinuity. Even if, contrary to what is argued above,833 the Homeric βαζηιεύο is not to be regarded as a monarch, the annual βαζηιεῖο could not have been a mere transformation from a Homeric aristocracy characterized as a council of βαζηιεῖο headed by a

829 See Foxhall (1997) 127-128 and references. 830 See on continuity, Renfrew (1979) 481-482. 831 Morris (1987) 2. Morris posits this observation as a main argument in that work. 832 Morris (1987) 2. 833 pp. 68-69. 186

βαζηιεύο as primus inter pares. It seems intuitive to think that the trajectory of the latter is towards monarchy, not towards a college of bureaucrats whose members include a ‗royal foil‘.

Anthropological models for societies that are politically weakly integrated, can predict an oscillation between hierarchy and heterarchy. Consider in this regard Leach‘s study of Burmese Kachin society.834 He demonstrated that politically the society oscillated between an egalitarian form, gumlao, a village without a chief, and an hierarchical form gumsa, large aristocratic estates under hereditary chiefs. In modelling this around processes of expansion, contradictions and contraction, Friedman rationalized the oscillation observed by Leach as follows:

―the dynamic of the Kachin system might be envisaged as an evolution towards increasing hierarchy and state formation which comes into contradiction with its own material constraints of reproduction but which by means of gumlao revolts succeeds in re-establishing the conditions of renewed evolution.‘835

According to Johnson egalitarian societies operate via sequential hierarchies where decision making is conducted by temporary ad hoc hierarchies. Such societies are said to be politically unstable and will tend to fission (Johnson‘s terminology) rather than evolve to the establishment of permanent hierarchy.836

According to Small

―leaders in these cultures rule by consensus, but power is rarely passed on to succeeding generations. Most importantly, social position is situationally invoked, determined by fixed ranking. Integration is weak, and fissioning is an alternative to evolving hierarchy.‖837

Such models, applied to Athens, suffer from the weaknesses of cross cultural comparison but they have demonstrated the existence of human societies that do not follow a pattern of

834 Leach (1954 and 1964). 835 Friedman (1975) 186. 836 Johnson (1989) esp. 378-379 and id. (1982) esp. 396-407. 837 Small (2007a) 223. 187

hierarchical evolution, thus giving scope for a wider range, or alternative pathways, of plausible socio-political evolution in archaic Athens.838

If Archaic Athens was not a weakly integrated society and perhaps institutionally lacunose, we should expect an historical record for the period that at least palely or vaguely indicates what it would become. Rather, in respect of most of that period wherever we look we see, in general, nothing or very little, or we see indications such as Morris‘ mortuary results pointing in the opposite direction of an Athens under democratia.839 Archaic Athens was not of course a terra nullius, but we may wonder if it was more a tabula rasa than anything like Burkert‘s complete society.840

But it has for long been argued that archaic Athens was a weakly integrated society841 and that this helps to explain its trajectory away from monarchy and towards demokratia.842 However, the present focus is to ask if the institution in archaic Athens of the nine archons, the triarchy of archōn, βαζηιεύο and polemarch and the additional six archons of the canonical nine, is an unreasonable expectation in a society in respect of which there is no specific objective contemporaneous evidence of its existence, or any contemporaneous evidence of its existence.

As alluded to in the Introduction,843 the mere absence of specific evidence would not be enough, but that absence combined with an evident lack of general circumstances in archaic Athens favourable to the inception and evolution of innovative political institutions allows the likelihood that the institution did not exist before the end of the 6th century BCE. In short, there is elliptical corroboration for the inference drawn from the silence in regard to direct evidence. Of course this argument, dismisses any ancient writing that suggests that the institution did

838 See in regard to the limitations in cross-cultural comparison Frankfort (1948/1978) 404 note 1. 839 Recall again Morris, this time Morris (2004) 49: around 700 BCE ―Distinct elite burials returned, while rich votives, monumental temples, and religious bipolarity are absent in the seventh century. This seems to have been a self conscious attempt to restore the lost order of the Dark Age, and Athens remained unique in ritual terms well into the sixth century.‖ 840 See above p. 172. 841 See, for example, Humphries (1978) 251-265. 842 There is no space here to discuss whether what Thucydides (e.g. 2.37.1) and the Old Oligarch call ‗democratia‘ bears any real relationship to what we call ‗democracy‘. 843 p. 22 above. 188

exist prior the end of the 6th century.844 However, so does precisely the same sort of argument when used to assert the non-existence in Athens of ancestral monarchy, an argument where the elliptical corroboration comes from, for instance, philological analyses and inferences drawn from Homer and Hesiod. In fact the two arguments are inextricably related in that the Ath. Pol.‘s theory for the formation of the triarchy essentially presupposes the monarchy. Rejection of the monarchy is a rejection of the Ath. Pol.‘s origin for the βαζηιεύο. Humphries recognized the problem, although the solution she proposes, informed as it seemingly is by her desire to preserve the orthodoxy of the early 7th century date, is less than compelling:

―The ancient conception of a regular succession of kings in early Athenian history may well have been a relatively late construct. It seems more likely that the introduction, probably in c. 7th century, of three elective offices (archon, basileus, polemarch) each tenable only for one year was preceded by less formal patterns.‖845

But formal patterns are hardly characteristic of what is reliably known about 7th and 6th century Athens. Could the political space of archaic Athens have produced an institution recognizable in the Ath. Pol.‘s institution of the nine archons?

E Political Space in Archaic Athens.

Major factors defining the space for political opportunities,846 and therefore political complexity, are population, geography, socio-economic complexity, and the external environment (that is, the potential of a place for conquest, or of a place from which conquest might threaten).

844 Not least of the reasons for a willingness to dismiss the ancient sources is serious contradiction. For example, Aristotle, Politics 1273b flatly contradicts the Ath. Pol. 8.1-2 on the issues, with respect to alleged Solonic reforms, both of elections of archons in archaic Athens and on who elected them. See on this Forrest and Stockton (1987) especially 239, but note Develin (1979) 461-463 whose attempt to reconcile the Ath. Pol. and Politics is queried by Carlier (1984) 326 note 8. 845 Humphries (2004) 232 note 26. 846 cf. the idea of ‗political fields‘ in Hammer (2003) 14: ―The activity of politics constitutes what I call the political field, a realm in which questions of community organization are raised, determined, and implemented . . . From this perspective, the polis does not provide the conditions for, as much as it provides evidence of, the activity of politics.‖ 189

(a) Population847

Morris calculated that for early 5th century Athens, the percentage of deceased who were buried was 1.7 and for the period 700 to 625 he had identified 74 Athenian graves.848 He assumed that the burial rate of 0.017 was applicable equally to the period 700 to 625 and to the early 5th century, and thus he calculated the annual average population in Athens for the period 700 to 625 at 1,935.849 By a similar calculation based on 136 Athenian graves (which Morris rounded up to 200 to allow for under-representation of the young)850 for the period 625 to 525, and again assuming a burial rate of 0.017, we get 3,922 as the annual average population in Athens for that period, the period 625 to 525.851

Morris rejected these results as being too low. His reasoning is instructive. Thus: ―These figures are unacceptably small. Peisistratos holding court over less than 4,000 Athenians is a ridiculous thought.‖ He therefore concludes: ―the Athenian burials represent a much smaller proportion of the population of the seventh and sixth centuries than of the fifth.‖ 852 That is, 7th and 6th century Athenians buried far less than 1.7% of their dead. It is not clear why ―Peisistratos holding court over less than 4,000 Athenians is a ridiculous thought‖. Morris clearly has a preconception of Peisistratid Athens that requires it to have a larger (perhaps a much larger) population than 4,000. Given the precious little that is reliably known about Peisistratid Athens it is hard to think that any convincing case could be mounted to justify Morris‘ preconception.

847 See Gomme (1933); Gomme (1959); Hansen (1982); Raaflaub (1991); Finley (1973) 7-18; Finley (1983a) 28- 29; Osborne (1985) 64-65; Ober (1989) 31-33; Manville (1990); Snodgrass (1993) 30-40; Morris (1987); Golden (2000) 23-40; Scheidel (2003); Scheidel (2004); Morris (2006); Hansen (2006); Morris (2009). Increased population density has been perceived to be associated with state formation: Stevenson (1965) 331-332. See in respect of the effect of increasing population on social organization: Dumond (1972) 302-324. For a theory of the social dynamics effects of population density see Fletcher (1995) 71-84. 848 Morris (1987) 100. 1000 푥 74/0.017 1000 퐵/푟 849 P = = 1,935 applying the formula P = . where P is population; B the number of burials; T 30푥75 30푇 the number of years; r the burial rate; and 30 the annual average number of deaths per 1,000 members of the population in agricultural societies taking all age groups into account. 850 Morris (1987) 101. 1000 푥 200/0.017 851 P = = 3,922 This figure differs slightly from Morris‘ figure of ‗just under 3,900‘: Morris 30푥100 (1987) 101. 852 Morris (1987) 101. 190

For present purposes it needs to be pointed out that Morris makes his calculation for the late Geometric period, roughly the 8th century, using the 1.7% burial rate to obtain an annual average population for that period of 7,000, concluding: ―This, I would suggest, is probably in roughly the right area; certainly few archaeologists would wish to push the population of Athens beyond 10,000 in the late eight century.‖853

Snodgrass‘ figures give the result that after centuries of stagnation the population of Attica in the period 825 to 780 grew at an average annual rate of 0.5%. For the period 780-720 BCE Morris estimated a population growth rate of 1.9%.854

The use above of the growth rate of 1.9% conceals a significant, perhaps fatal, problem. The rate was determined from burial data. Scheidel has persuasively argued that attempts at deriving ―demographic growth rates from burial data are irremediably flawed and must be abandoned.‖855 Thus, we do not know of, and therefore cannot quantitatively allow for, changes in cultural practice in respect of burial and non-burial of the deceased, in particular practices that are age related: adult versus sub-adult.

However, there is a fall-back position based on mathematical necessity. A net (births minus deaths) population growth rate of 5% is considered a rare possibility at best. A net growth rate of 3% is considered fast (the population doubles every 23.3 years,856 whilst even 2% is considered substantial.857 But this can only mean that it is not unreasonable to work with annual average net population growth rates of between zero and 2%.

Morris estimated the total Athenian population for c. 431 at 35,000 to 40,000 based not on burials, but on settlement area and population density.858 Morris‘ estimate is a rise from a population in perhaps the low hundreds at 800 BCE. This estimate for 800 BCE is in accord with Snodgrass‘ overall perspective that in Greece the dark age population had sunk to very low

853 Morris (1987) 101. cf. id., (2009) 71 where he uses the phrase ―several thousand.‖ 854 Miller (1995) 222-223 and note 155, asserts that the population increase can be seen qualitatively in the increase in the proportion of wells to burials in the area of what was to become the Classical agora. 855 Scheidel (2003) 131. 856 When the net rate (R) is 0.03, for an exponential doubling, that is for eRT to equal 2.0, T is 23.3 years. 857 Wrigley (1969) 54. High rates have been recorded. Consider that for North America in the 18th century the growth rate was 3%. For Pitcairn Island founded in 1790 by 6 of the bounty mutineers, and 8 or 9 Polynesian women, for 79 years the growth rate was over 3.5 %. See Birdsell (1957). 858 Morris (1987) 100. 191

levels: ―a really prominent site might yet be one that housed a community of, say, a hundred or two people with consequent implications for lesser sites . . .‖859 Snodgrass advocated a population of 50 for c. 800 in respect of Lefkandi on Euboea.860 But Lefkandi is not Athens, and there is no reliable Athenian comparative.861

The annual rate of growth of population will of course vary over time, and the variations will be dramatic as between times of prosperity and times of stress, such as from war, famine, and epidemic disease. But it is a certain fact that the population of Athens did rise over the period 800 to 431.

Keeping Morris‘ 35,000-40,000 in 431 BCE in mind, consider now the pathway of ‗rate of 푑푃 푑푃 change of population‘ . The relevant equation is a linear differential: = RP where R is a 푑푇 푑푇 RT constant. Its solution for P is Poe . That is, the population at the time T with a starting RT 862 population Po, and a net rate of population growth R, is given by Poe .

This exponential relationship ceases to operate when the population begins to challenge the availability of the resources necessary to sustain it. However,` there is no archaic record indicating any challenge to that limit.863

Calculating backwards from 431 BCE at rates near to 2% gives a population in 800 BCE in the range of 100 and less. Rates nearer the lower end of the 0 to 2% range give a population in 800 BCE of a few thousand at most.864 But why would the rate be towards the low end? There is no evidence of the population being under sustained pressure by reason of warfare, or epidemic disease, or food shortages. Scheidel865 would probably regard 2% as too high, but as indicated above a rate of 0.5% produces a population of over 6,000 in 800 BCE for which there

859 Snodgrass (1983) 171. 860 Snodgrass (1983) 169. 861 Young‘s burial plot at the corner of the classical Agora has a comparable mix of adult/child burials, but it is too small to constitute a statistically significant sample: Young (1939) 13. See also Hall (2006) 63-64. 푑푃 862 = 푅푑푇. Hence, log P = RT + log P so P = P eRT . 푃 e e o o 863 The issue of limits on population size is not straightforward. In the paradigm of Malthus, population is a variable dependant on food supply. In the paradigm of Ester Boserup, population is an independent variable—the development of agricultural technology is in part determined by population. See Boserup (1965) and the discussion in Tandy (1997) 32-34. See also Gallant (1982) and Foxhall (1997). 864 For example 0.5 % gives 6,289. 865 Scheidel (2003) 124. 192

is no burial record that is anywhere even nearly commensurate, unless we make an assumption along the lines that a substantial part of the population was precluded from formal burial. Such an assumption was described by Snodgrass as one that would be ―quite unattested for Greece‖.866

And recall that Morris has said that over the 8th century the population went from ―almost nothing to several thousand‖.867 If Morris‘ ―almost nothing‖ was say 500 (more than Snodgrass might have allowed), and we take several thousand to be 7,000, this implies a growth rate over the 8th century of an order approaching 3%. If we take the ―almost nothing‖ to be 100, the growth rate is of an order exceeding 4%.

On the whole it seems not unreasonable to use as an estimate an annual average net growth rate of 1% for the period 800 to 431 applied to 40,000 in 431 BCE. Calculating backwards from 40,000 in 431 BCE gives populations of the order of 12,000 in 550 BCE, 7,000 in 600 BCE, 4,500 in 650 BCE, 3,000 in 700 BCE and 1,000 in 800 BCE.868 If we allow that about half these populations would be sub-adult, the adult populations would be of the order of 6,000, 3,500, 2,250, 1,500 and 500 respectively.869

If a net rate of 1% is considered excessive that is compensated for at least to a degree by the fact that the 40,000 end point would for obvious reasons include a substantial percentage of people who would not be descendants of the inhabitants in 800 BCE and later pre-600 BCE immigrants.870

These results are not out of accord with the estimates of Morris, that the population of Dark Age Athens is not likely to have fallen below 500.871 They are not meant to be estimates so much as indicators of scale permitting us to contemplate Athens as a small, or relatively small,

866 Snodgrass (1983) 169 867 See p.175 above. 868 The relevant inverse e values are 0.304221, 0.184520, 0.111917, 0.067881 and 0.024972 respectively. 869 Refinement by reference to age distribution models is not warranted given the gross estimations employed, and the fact that an average rate of increase is used. In reality, rates will of course vary over time periods being considered. For age distribution models see Hansen (1985). 870 According to Hansen, in 450 BCE the population of adult male citizens of the polis ―may have been something like 60,000‖: Hansen (1999) 53 and references. Hansen attributes a dramatic rise in citizens to the granting of citizenship to metroxenoi (people with citizen fathers but non-citizen mothers) and metics. 871 According to the report of Lenz (1993) 127 as to what Morris asserts at p. 42 in an unpublished manuscript. 193

community in population terms for most of the period from the 8th century BCE to late 6th century BCE.

(b) The Geographic Size of Athens.872

(i) Athens and the Acropolis

Even in Thucydides‘ time the Acropolis was synonymous with the ‗city‘.873 In the extant writing well into the classical period, and for centuries beyond, Athens continued to be identified ‗inwards‘ with the Acropolis rather than ‗outwards‘ with Attica.874 Herodotus refers to land below or at the foot of Mount Hymettos (ὑπὸ ηὸλ ὘κεζζὸλ) given by the Athenians to the Pelasgians in return for the wall around or on the Acropolis (πεξὶ ηὴλ ἀθξόπνιηλ); a wall said by Herodotus to have been built by the Pelasgians.875 Whether the land referred to was on the western or the eastern side of Hymettos Herodotus does not say, but the text suggests that the land was not land that the Athenians themselves required until they saw the use to which it could be put by the Pelasgians. The text goes on to refer to the nine springs (἖λλεάθξνπλνο) as the place from which Athenian children fetched water.876 The springs were probably located just to the south east of the Acropolis.877 These references suggest, even if in respect of this particular tale Herodotus cannot be relied on,878 that at the time of Herodotus it was relatively

872 Some ancient references: Thucydides: 2.15.3, 2.15.6, 2.17, and 18.66.3 (size of Attica); Drakōn‘s law, IG I3 104, refers to border (or frontier) markets, and to ‗Athenian‘; Plato, Kritias, 110 d-e; Solon is said to have referred to himself in effect as an Athenian of Attica: Diogenes Laertius 1.47; Herodotus, 6.137.2; Lucan: Bis accusatus sive Tribunalia, at 9. 873 Thucydides, 2.15.6: θαιεῖηαη δὲ δηὰ ηὴλ παιαηὰλ ηαύηῃ θαηνίθεζηλ θαὶ ἡ ἀθξόπνιηο κέρξη ηνῦδε ἔηη ὑπ‘ Ἀζελαίσλ πόιηο. 874 For Aristophanes, in Birds, 831-2, the fictional Πειαξγηθόλ and its protection symbolize the protection of the fictional city with which it is associated in the play: ηίο δαὶ θαζέμεη η῅ο πόιεσο ηὸ Πειαξγηθόλ. Elsewhere he refers to the acropolis as ―our sacred citadel (ἱεξὸλ ηέκελνο)‖: Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 481-3. 875 Herodotus, 6.137.2. In other versions of the story the land given to the Pelasgians was on or about the Acropolis. The wall referred to by Herodotus as having been built by the Pelasgians is perhaps the wall referred to by Kleidemos: θαὶ ἠπέδηδνλ ηὴλ ἀθξόπνιηλ, πεξηέβαιινλ δὲ ἐλλεάππινλ ηὸ Πειαξγηθόλ (16FGrH323 from Suda: s.v. ἄπεδνλ. Pelargikon literally means ‗a construction of (or for) a stork‘). Over five centuries after Herodotus, at least remnants of the Pelasgikon were still visible: thus Lucan, Piscator, at 42: παξὰ δὲ ηὸ πειαζγηθὸλ ἄιινη. The Pelargikon as a construction of the Pelasgians is recorded by Myrsilos and Hekataios: see Harding (2008) 23-26 and 196-198. The nine-gated (Enneapylon) entry to the Acropolis is referred to by Polemon and a scholion on Sophocles (see Müller (1975) FHG, No. 131, and Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonos, 489, respectively. See in general Travlos (1971) 52 and fig. 67; Iakovidis (1962) 185-189; Wycherley (1978) 7-8; Hurwit (1999) 75-78. 876 If it was the same ἖λλεάθξνπλνο referred to by Thucydides it was conveniently located near the Acropolis:. Thucydides 2.15.5. 877 Camp (1992) 42-43. 878 There is reason to be suspicious: see Harding (2008) 23-26 and 196-8; Sweeney (2009) 111-113. 194

recent memory that the geographical scale of Athens was confined to the area on and about the Acropolis.

The oft repeated refrain of the orators, ὦ ἄλδξεο Ἀζελαῖνη, does not encourage a view that the Athenians had for long perceived themselves as occupying an ‗Attican‘ geopolitical space.879

Houby-Nielsen argues in respect of the archaic period that ―[a]ll in all there is little doubt that the people of Attica were familiar with the geographical extremities, defined by straits, of the then known world, and this will have influenced their perception of their own region.‖880 But this proposition is based on the idea that the ―people of Attica‖ were aware of what Houby- Nielsen alleges was a then ―world view‖ that the Mediterranean Sea was bounded by the Straits of Gibraltar and the straits of the Hellespont. Yet just as imagined space may be presumed to have been in general severely circumscribed, it seems reasonable to think that the imagined community of the people of archaic Attica could not have extended far beyond those with whom they dealt on a day to day basis. It seems likely that, in general, for archaic Attica the local was really all there was; the rest must have been more or less incomprehensible. Obviously there would have been a few who did have a broader detailed perspective, and no doubt they and visitors would have brought their perspectives to the local communities, but it seems unlikely that that would have been enough to produce the sort of world view that Houby-Nielsen envisages.881 A collective consciousness in respect of anything beyond the local could not have been easily formed, and this alone weighs against the idea that a geopolitical Attica under rule from Athens in the conception of such a phenomenon that we have in respect of the classical period could have formed early.

However, obviously the case for an accommodating political space in 7th century Athens would be improved if it could be established that by then Athens was the political centre of an Attica- wide sovereign territory. In this context a consideration of the issue of the unification of Attica is unavoidable.

879 See Herodotus at 8.70.2, γ῅ο η῅ο Ἀζελαίσλ and at 7.10H.3, γῆ ηῆ Ἀζελαίσλ. Euripides in Iphigenia, 1131 uses the phrase Ἀζελαίσλ ἐπὶ γ᾵λ, and in Heracles 1169 the phrase γ῅ο Ἀζελαίσλ. See also Pausanias at 1.30.4: Ἀζελαίνηο ηὴλ γ῅λ and at 3.7.10: γ῅λ ηὴλ Ἀηηηθὴλ. 880 Houby-Nielsen (2009) 197. 881 However, consider in this regard Munn (2006) 178-220 in particular his discussion there of the world maps of Anaximander and Hecataeus. 195

(ii) Unification

The literature on the subject is substantial,882 but on the whole it tends to pay too little attention to what was unified, what constituted unification, and how long unification (whatever is presumed to constitute it) actually took. These not unrelated issues tend to be left as vague background. The reason why they are so left is because we do not know enough to rigorously address them. Yet the discussion of unification is artificial in circumstances where these crucial issues are not rigorously addressed.

On the issue of what was unified we have two scenarios for the oxymoronic notion of a pre- unified Attica.883 In one, the people of Attica comprised a collection of scattered rural village communities.884 In the other, Attica is conceived as having urban centres. This follows the story of Kekrops having divided Attica into 12 cities so that the unification wrought by Thēseus was to gather the cities together under rule from Athens.885 In the modern literature the issue of ‗when‘ is usually answered, if not expressly then implicitly, in terms of a terminus post quem.886

882 The ancient accounts include the accounts in Thucydides 2.15 (1-2); Theophrastus, Characters 26.6; F94FGrH328 (Philochoros); A20FGrH239 (Parian Marble); F1FGrH369 (Anonymous Periegete); Diodoros Siculus 4.61.8, F4FGrH103 (Charax); Plutarch, Theseus, 24-25; 32; Pausanias, 1.22.3, 6 and 8.2.1; Xenophon, On Hunting, 1.10; Eusebius, Chronicles 798; and, Dio Chrysostom, 45.13. There is discussion above, pp. 109, 110, concerning the reference in Demosthenes (Apollodoros): 59.75. Substantial modern writing includes Solders (1931); Kornemann (1934); Sarkady (1966); Alföldy (1969); Diamant (1982); Padgug (1972); Herter (1973); Moggi (1976); Anderson (2000); Andrews (1982); Welwei (1992) 32ff; Anderson (2003). In regard to the notion of synoikismos: Wade-Gery (1931); Hignett (1952) 37 (on the distinction to be drawn between political unification and synoikismos); Deubner (1956) 36ff (on what is known of the festival of the Synoikia). 883 There is either an Attica or there is not. An Attica that is is an Attica that is unified in some way. There is nothing on which to base a conception of a geographical Attica in the absence of a geo-political Attica. 884 For some ancient sources for this perspective see Isocrates 10.35; Diodoros, 4.61.8; Cicero, Laws 2.5; and Valerius Maximus, 5.3.ext.3 885 On the Theseus myth: Euripides, Suppliants, 403-8; Demosthenes (Apollodoros) 59.74; Demosthenes 60.28; Isocrates 10.32-10.38, 12.126-130; Thucydides, 2.15.2; Theophrastos, 16.6; Parian Marble A20FGrH239. See also Viviers (1993). As to the ‗12‘ cities both Charax, 43FGrH103, and Philochoros, 94FGrH328, say there were 11 cities: Philochoros actually lists the 11. 886 Hammond (1963) 155, Padgug, 1972, and Stubbings (1975) 165-187, envisage a ‗unified Attica‘ going back to the Bronze Age. Polignac (1995) 81-80 seems, but rather vaguely, to subscribe to the same view. An 8th century terminus is given by Hignett (1952); Snodgrass (1977); Diamant (1982); Andrews (1982); and Morris (1987) 195; A 7th century terminus is given by Osborne (1994). An early 6th terminus is given by Manville (1990) and by Frost (1994) 46-56. A late 6th century terminus is given by Anderson (2003) and by Hall (2009) 222ff, who argues that it was a process that came to its fulfilment with Kleisthenēs. Hornblower (1991) 262-266 argues that there may have been a Mycenaean synoikismos and a Dark Age one, cf. Diamant (1982) 38-50, and Cavanagh, (1991) 97-118. 196

The colonies of Australia were unified in 1901 when the precisely defined geographical boundaries of what had hitherto been separate but on the whole clearly defined geopolitical units were welded together by a legislative enactment of the British Parliament to form a precisely defined unified geopolitical entity constituted by precisely defined federated states. We cannot talk of the ‗unification of Attica‘ in terms even remotely approaching that degree of precision, or with any degree of precision, and it can be seriously queried whether we would be attempting to discuss it at all if it were not for the myth of Thesean synoecism and the degree to which it seems to have captured the imagination of the ancient writers. The very idea of the ‗unification of Attica‘ may be a complete phantom; a pseudo-historical issue. We do not, for example, ask, in relation to a biological organism, when did its parts come together? We know that the coalescence was the result of a process, not of a single event in time. Much of the debate about unification is pointless because we do not know if we are dealing with an historical event, or an organic process.

Thēseus was promoted by Johannes Toepffer and later by Hans Herter, both of the so-called German Historical School.887 Each of these scholars claimed to be able to follow Thēseus all around the Greek world; Herter finding that he was an Attic-Thessalian hero.888 Walker critically reviews this finding and concludes that whilst Thēseus had a Panhellenic reputation, he was ‗born‘ and ‗grew up‘ in North East Attica around Aphidna and Marathon: ―This part of Attica is his real homeland and we should not be misled by his adventures abroad.‖889 Arguing that the synoecism must have predated the composition of the Iliad because ‗Homer always speaks of Attica as a united state‘ Walker goes on to say:

―Theseus changes from a local hero to a national ruler at precisely the time that the inhabitants of Attica transfer their loyalty from their region to the capital city. He emerges as a national hero when Attica is united into a polis centred on Athens. The new state took over an Attic hero with a Panhellenic reputation, just as it had taken over the land of Attica itself and her institutions.‖890

887 Toepffer (1889/2010); Herter (1936). See the criticism of the Historical School by Nilsson (1932) 1-10. 888 Herter (1936) 234. 889 Walker (1995) 14. 890 Walker (1995) 15. 197

But what is to be made of the strange notion of a ―new state‖ that pre-exists the thing which constitutes it? How had Attica ―taken over‖? What were the institutions of the ―land of Attica itself‖ that were taken over? What is to be made of the idea of the Homeric picture of Athens as a ―united state‖ if we are not to equate Athens with Attica and thus drift into tautology?

Anderson also focuses on the Thēseus myth as an invention to explain unification, but he argues that its purpose was also to legitimize unification:

―The primary purpose of political traditions like this one is to help legitimize an action that is in some sense problematic, and there is no evidence to suggest that the issue of a united Attica was especially contentious or controversial following the reforms of Cleisthenes.‖891

But we have to ask, why? Is it because the reforms of Kleisthenēs are what finally unified Attica? This is in fact what Anderson argues.892 As Anderson points out: if Attica had long since been unified, as all seem to believe,

―why was there still a need in the last decade of the sixth century to ‗transcend local barriers‘, to neutralize ‗disparate local interests‘, to nurture sentiments of ‗union and friendship,‘ to ‗restructure‘ the extended citizen community, and to encourage ‗the unification of the state‘?‖893

Anderson mounts a persuasive case that Thēseus was not truly adopted in Athens until late in the 6th century with the story of Thesean synoecism invented to account for unification, the ascendancy of Thēseus adding weight to the case for a late 6th century date for final unification.

It thus seems reasonable to dismiss the notion of an early unified Attica, if only because the origins of the idea make a central figure of a phenomenon, Thēseus, who was clearly not a significant feature in Athens until well into the 6th century.

The coincidence of Thēseus with the events of the late 6th century, and therefore of the myth of the Thesean synoecism at that time, suggests that Athenian geographic space had by then

891 Anderson (2003) 136. 892 Anderson (2003) 142. 893 Anderson (2003) 39 with quotations from Ostwald (1988) 316. 198

extended well beyond the Acropolis and its immediate environs, a process that would have been going on for a significant period of time.

Perhaps the myth was an elaboration of an original concerned to explain the political coalescence of settlements dispersed about the Plain of Athens.

(iii) Athens and Attica

In any event, there are no sound grounds to think that for most of the 8th through to the 6th century the geographic element in the makeup of political space in Athens was coterminous with the ‗physical‘ boundaries of Attica, whatever, if anything (actual or conceptual), constituted those boundaries. There is no persuasive reason to think that for most of that period they extended very far at all beyond the Acropolis and its immediate environs; save that it is reasonable to think that whatever the area was, it had expanded significantly by the end of the 6th century.

For what they are worth, vague references in Thucydides suggest that the initial interaction between settlements in Attica may not have been peaceful.894 However, there is better evidence that diversity in Attica was strong and persistent into the classical period and beyond. Strabo refers to the tetrapolis of Marathōn, Probalinthos, Oinoē, and Trikorynthos, centred on the collective worship of Dionysos.895 As if preserving the past after the manner of mitochondrial DNA, the ηεηξάπνιηο continued to have separate representation at Delphi from that of Athens even after incorporation of the settlements of the Marathon plain into the Athenian city state.896 Other Athenian associations that arguably carried a trace of an earlier period of an Attica of autonomous settlements are the Tetrakomoi, the Trikomoi, the Epakreis and the Mesogeioi.897

894 Thucydides 1.8: a reference that may or may not be a reference to Attica, to subjugation of one πόιηο by another; and 2.14-17: a reference to conflict between the Eleusinians under Eumolpos and the Athenians under Erechtheus. 895 Strabo, Geography, 8.6 and 8.7. 896 See on this Camp (2001) 292. 897 nd Such interests may have existed even in the 2 century CE. Pausanias (1.14.7) reported a specific discrepancy between the settlement of Athmoneis (now Marousi, a modern suburb of Athens) and Athens in regard to a legend concerning Aphrodite. See in general Parker (1996) 328-332 and Anderson (2003) chapter 1 with notes and references. For Epakreis, Papazarkadas (2007). For epigraphic evidence, Jones (1999). 199

But it is not inconceivable that the autonomous settlements, if they existed and that is what they were, united as a whole from time to time to deal with external threats.898

However, assessing the external environment faced by the Athenians in the 8th to 6th centuries requires first a decision as to what the externality was: external to the Acropolis and its environs, or external to Attica as a geographical space radially extending to a limit somewhere between the Athenian Acropolis and its environs and the borders of Attica when Attica reached its greatest extent. The problem is that we can do more than assume that a progressive unification was reflected in borders that were intermediate between Athens and what Attica became in its final limits. And we can only do this if we assume that unification was an organic process and uniformly incremental. If, to the contrary, unification was a process that involved the absorption of isolated territorial spaces, formed perhaps from an internal migration, an intermediate map would have been simply a set of ‗islands‘ on a landscape otherwise not controlled by Athens.899 Kleisthenes‘ achievement might have been simply to connect the ‗dots‘.900 In any event there is uncertainty. Nomos Attikis clearly extends well beyond what can be attested for Attikē gē but two areas that are commonly included in Attikē gē, Orōpos and Salamis, are controversial at the level of when they should be connected with Athens and how they should be connected: words such as ‗protectorate‘ and ‗subject‘ may or may not reflect the true relationship of Orōpos and/or Salamis with Athens.

The problem of defining Attica geopolitically is that even the ancient authorities make the boundaries of Attica a movable feast. This is of particular importance in connection with the Athenian βαζηιεύο because of his traditional association with the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Thucydides presents Eleusis as part of a pre-Thēseus quasi-unified Attica, notwithstanding that the pre-Thesean relationship with Eleusis was not always peaceful.901 However, Plutarch has it that Eleusis was wrested by Thēseus from Megara after he had first journeyed to Athens.902

898 For what it is worth there is a hint of this in Strabo 9.1.20: the alleged dōdekapolis was formed because of assaults by Karians by sea and Boiotians by land 899 Alföldy (1969) 16-19 makes a distinction between independence and autonomy, arguing that the tradition is of autonomous regions becoming unified. If there were such regions, autonomous or independent, we have no grounds for believing that their borders would necessarily have been contiguous. 900 cf. D‘Onofrio (1997). 901 Thucydides, 2.15 1. 902 Plutarch, Theseus, 10.3. 200

There is in fact a strong tradition associating Eleusis with control by Megara, or at least claims to Eleusis by Megara.903 Demosthenes refers to the θαηαξάηνπο Μεγαξέαο for their having annexed or cut-off (ἀπνηέκλσ) the ὀξγάο.904

In Strabo‘s account the kingdom of Pandion II included Megara, and Megara was part of the share of Pandion‘s kingdom that Pandion gave to his son Nisos.905 Thus, it was the ancient tradition that Megara, and Eleusis along with it,906 had been part of Attica from the start, only to later separate from Attica.907 If Megara was ever part of an Attica controlled by Athens, after it ceased to be so it seems at no time to have been re-connected to Athens.908 As for Eleusis, the idea that it was absorbed by Athens by conquest has been debunked, notwithstanding a strong tradition of an alleged state of war between Athens and Eleusis in ‗the period of the kings‘.909

The Spartans had managed to bring under their control a large topographically diverse land area but only by enslaving the heilōtai, and by the permanent subjugation of the perioikoi. But there are no good grounds for believing that an area so relatively large and topographically diverse as Attica in its classical dimensions could have become a geopolitical entity before the late 6th century.910 It certainly could not have happened with ease, and there is no evidence of its having come about by conquest. Furthermore, as far as anything useful can be said in relation to population, the idea that Athens with a population of a few thousand at most, half of

903 Jacoby (1954) Volume 3b (supplement), 329-335, (107FGrH328, Philochoros); Jacoby (1954) Volume 1, 164 (F14FGrH10, Strabo). 904Demosthenes, 13.32. IG II2 204 dated to 352/1 also suggests that the Megara/Eleusis tradition was still alive in the 4th century. In regard to this inscription see Scafuro (1999). 905 Strabo 9.1.6. 906 De Sanctis (1898) 36-37 saw no political connection between Megara and Eleusis and argued that the union between Athens and Eleusis was by peaceful agreement.. 907 See Pausanias 1.39.4 and 1.42.1. 908 There is no doubt that by the 4th century there was a long tradition of hostility between Athens and Megara even at the intellectual level. Plutarch, Theseus 20 refers to an allegation by the Megarian historian Hereas that Peisistratos doctored not only Homer but also Hesiod. Jacoby (1954) Volume 3b, 233-234, (F1FGrH486) to the effect that Hereas was reflecting Megarian resentment that Theseus was perceived to have brought Megara under greater control by Athens. 909 Jacoby (1949) 124-125. Padgug argues persuasively that the ―historical memory‖ was misinformed: Padgug (1972) 138-140. Equally persuasive is Frost in arguing that a tradition of warfare between Athens and Aegina should be entirely rejected as ―a mixture of anachronisms and aetiological legends‖ and a story ―used to support a theory of early Athenian naval power‖: Frost (1984) 285-286. 910 cf. De Sanctis (1898) 37: ―Così dunque una regione di circa 2300 km2 era stata fusa in un solo stato, considerevole anche nel modo di vedere dell'età classica, il più esteso forse, quando sorse, di tutti gli stati greci.‖ 201

them sub-adults and otherwise at the time a declining population of illiterate subsistence farmers, was from end of the 8th century ―lording‖ it over land stretching from Salamis to Eleutherai and Eleusis to Brauron is ―a ridiculous thought‖ to employ Morris‘ phrase used in the quite different context above.911 Nor is there much to be said for the idea that things would have been materially different in the 7th century and most of the 6th.

And whilst Thucydides warned that we should not judge a city by its cover,912 from the perspective given by building also there is not much of a case to be made on the available evidence that Athens had a complex system of public administration before the 5th century.913

(i) Building

The archaeological record in respect of private dwellings is not consistent with the existence of a substantial metropolis at any time in Athens or Attica prior to the end of the 6th century. But for obvious reasons, not least destruction without trace, that is not conclusive. Some attempt has been made at statistical analysis of house sizes. Morris reports that median houses sizes in the Aegean show significant rises after about 550 BCE and a sharp rise after about 450 BCE.914 However, as he points out, the sample size is small and there are numerous problems that cannot be quantified with any certainty.915

The evidence in respect of construction of buildings for civic or religious use is also problematic. The ancient sources may refer to buildings by name and by relative and/or absolute location. However, in very many instances the archaeological record does not identify buildings nominated in the literary sources, and very often where the record does identify such a building it does so only tentatively. Misascriptions and misdescriptions can be significant in the present context, concerned as it is with politico-social complexity in Athens. Obvious examples are the ascription ‗law court‘ to the large rectangular peribolos in the South West

911 p. 189. In relation to literacy and writing see in general: Stoddart and Whitley (1988) 761-772; Thomas (1992); Sickinger (1999); Wilson (2009) 543-563. 912 Thucydides, 1.10.1-2. 913 See in general Boersma (1970); Camp (1977); Shear (1978) 1-19; Camp (1984); von Steuben (1989) 81-87; Hölscher (1991); Miller (1995); Boersma 49-56; Camp (2000); Morris (2005) (note charts and diagrams); Anderson (2007) esp. chapters 3 and 4; Foxhall (2009) 500-507, and references, in particular note 17 in regard to the ‗public space‘/‗private space‘ distinction. 914 Morris (2005) graph 108. 915 Morris (2005) 112. 202

corner of the Classical Agora, now thought to have been the site of a dedication to the hero Aiakos;916 the description of the site of the Classical Agora as having been used for habitation during the Dark Ages and the Archaic period, now strongly alleged not to have been so used;917 the ascription ‗initiation house‘ for the building long so called at Eleusis, now thought to have been a secular building;918 the misidentification of an area to the South West of the Acropolis as the site of the Archaic Agora;919 and the ascription ‗hearth altar‘ to a structure dated to the sub-Mycenaean on the Nike bastion of the Acropolis but now considered on chronological grounds to be misidentified.920

An especially pertinent example of the issue of correct identification is the Royal Stoa, a building which is referred to twice in the Ath. Pol.921

The phrase in Ath. Pol. 7.4 is ἐλ ηῆ ζηνᾶ ηῆ βαζηιείῳ, but there is no elaboration. Again, as with the Boukolion, there is perhaps a presumption in the Ath. Pol. of common knowledge. If any archaeological evidence in the nature of a building is to be corroborative of the historicity of the βαζηιεύο as an official of the Athenian state, it would have to at least to some degree connect the βαζηιεύο in that capacity to that building, and the connection would have to exclude other possible connections. In that regard it may be observed that the Ath. Pol. refers to the Thesmotheteion and the Polemarcheion, but it does not refer to a ‗basileion‘; and it allocates the Archon to the Prytaneion, not to an ‗archeion‘.922 To add to the confusion, the Ath. Pol. asserts that under Solon all the archons were brought together in the Thesmotheteion.923

Whether ἐλ ηῆ ζηνᾶ ηῆ βαζηιείῳ is to be taken to mean ―in the Royal Stoa‖ or to mean ―in the stoa of the king‖, it does not follow without more that the text is dealing with a place that is the office of the βαζηιεύο. However, the communis opinio, at least implicitly, is that the Royal Stoa

916 Stroud (1998) 85-108. 917 See Papadopoulos (1996) 123. See also id, (2003) 21-22. 918 See Darcque (1981) 593-605. 919 Referred to as the ―Old Town‖ in the map in Oikonomides (1964) xx. 920 Mark (1993). 921 Ath. Pol. 3.5 and 7.4. In relation to Ath. Pol., 7.4, which concerns the display of the stele containing the so- called Law of Drakōn at the Royal Stoa, see the reference to the stoa in IG I2 115, lines 4-8 dated to 409/8 B.C. On the stoa as an architectural form, see Acocella (2006) 218-227 and Kostof (1995) 143-145. 922 Ath. Pol., 3.5, loc. cit: The Polemarcheion was renamed the Epilykeion after the polemarch Epilykos. 923 Ath. Pol., 3.5. 203

and the βαζηιεύο are inextricably linked.924 The two references to the stoa in Plato‘s Euthyphro do not provide a usable topographical context, and none of the other extant literary references to the Royal Stoa significantly assist with respect to the use of the building.925

The only usable topographical reference to the Royal Stoa is in the second century AD testimony of Pausanias.926 It is principally upon that testimony that the present identification of the Royal Stoa site is based.

The site of the Royal Stoa was announced as having been ―definitely established‖ after the first year of excavations in 1930, notwithstanding that the same site was even more convincingly identifiable as the site of the Stoa of Zeus.927 Seven years later, Thompson, in a highly cogent closely argued paper occupying 13 quarto pages of Hesperia, advanced the argument that the Royal Stoa and the Stoa of Zeus were one and the same,928 dismissing the scholiasts and lexicographers who clearly distinguished the two buildings as confused or misguided. However, the matter was controversial, and Hesperia‘s editor refrained from an official conflation of the two buildings.929 In 1940 and again in 1957 Wycherley argued for Thompson‘s position, albeit with a degree of ambivalence.930

In an afterword to his 1937 article, Thompson dealt with an argument of Walter that relied on the use by Pausanias of the verb ᾠθνδόκεηαη (in the phrase ζηνὰ δὲ ὄπηζζελ ᾠθνδόκεηαη).931 Walter‘s argument was that Pausanias‘ use of the verb demanded that he be taken as introducing a new building, so distinguishing the two stoas in question.932 Thompson summarily dismissed the argument on the ground that the verb ᾠθνδόκεηαη was ―colorless‖.933 If the discovery in 1970 of the now recognized site of the Royal Stoa cured ᾠθνδόκεηαη of its anaemia it has not made the scholiasts and lexicographers necessarily less unreliable.

924 Rhodes (1992) 103 expresses a small reservation: the βαζηιεύο used it ―at any rate for some of his business.‖ (emphasis added). 925 The testimonia are collected in Wycherley (1957) 21-25. 926 Pausanias, 1.3.1-1.3.3. 927 Shear (1971). 928 Thompson (1937); Valmin (1933-1934) 1-7 also argued for the equivalence of the two stoas. 929 Shear (1971). 930 Wycherley (1940) and Wycherley (1957) 30-31 and Pausanias, 1.3.3. 931 Thompson (1937) 225-226. 932 Walter (1937) 95-100. 933 Thompson (1937) 225. He referred to another use of the verb by Pausanias in 9.10. 2-3. 204

As for Pausanias, the crucial words are: πξώηε δέ ἐζηηλ ἐλ δεμηᾶ θαινπκέλε ζηνὰ βαζίιεηνο, ἔλζα θαζίδεη βαζηιεὺο ἐληαπζίαλ ἄξρσλ ἀξρὴλ θαινπκέλελ βαζηιείαλ.934 He does not identify the source of his testimony, he speaks in the present, and he does not elaborate on what he means where he says ―the basileus sits‖ (θαζίδεη). At the very most, all we are entitled to say is that at the time Pausanias wrote, c. mid-2nd century CE, the βαζηιεύο ‗sat‘ (when and for how long and for what precise purpose in the mid mid-2nd century CE we do not know) in the Royal Stoa. Nor are we entitled to assume that Pausanias was not referring to the Stoa of Zeus when referring to where the βαζηιεύο sits. It remains curious that Pausanias does not mention the Stoa of Zeus in the crucial passage.935 The Stoa of Zeus would have presented a striking contrast with the Royal Stoa if they were perceived by the visitor as entirely separate. But Pausanias may have thought the buildings were connected (they were not more than a metre or so apart). Perhaps he dismissed the Royal Stoa as a mere appendage to the Stoa of Zeus which, at the time he wrote about it, he thought was called the Royal Stoa.

Benjamin D. Meritt published a stele found in front of the Stoa of Zeus which praises an archon and his paredroi.936 Meritt dated the stele to the first half of the 3rd century BCE and argued that the find established the stoa as the office of whoever the archon was. As the archon is not identified either by name or office, Meritt allowed the possibility that the archon was a βαζηιεύο and suggested that the Stoa of Zeus and the Royal Stoa were one and the same. However, he went on to say that if the Stoa of Zeus and the Royal Stoa were not one and the same, then given that the Archon Eponymous also had his office in the Agora (an assertion for which he gives no authority), and assuming the stele belongs to the Archon Eponymous, the stele was ―prima facie evidence that his office was in the Stoa of Zeus.‖937 Meritt argued that ―it is natural to suppose that the decree honouring an archon would be erected before his political office.‖938

934 Papadopoulos (2006) 271 translates θαινπκέλελ βαζηιείαλ as ―the so-called kingship.‖ 935He mentions the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios at 10.22.3 in connection with what he alleges was the theft by Sulla‘s men of shields displayed in the Stoa that were dedicated to Zeus Eleutherios. It is generally accepted that Book 10 was written years after Book 1 and must have been written from notes or memory. But note 1.26.2. 936 Meritt (1936) 416-417. 937 Meritt (1936) 417. Meritt cited Andocides, 4.14 and Busolt-Swoboda (1920-1926) 1074, note 3 for his speculation that the Eponymous Archon also had his office in the Agora. 938 Meritt (1936) 417. 205

Supposition has played a significant role in the identification of the site today accepted as that of the Royal Stoa. Thus, among the finds of the excavation of the site in 1970 were three herm bases referring in each case to a βαζηιεύο. The herm bases are a spectacular corroboration of the historicity of the βαζηιεύο, and, in specific respects, of the Ath. Pol., but they do not prove that the building identified today as the Royal Stoa was the office of the βαζηιεύο and, as noted below, it was not from the Royal Stoa that it is alleged the mystai were summoned, but from the Stoa Poikile.939

For the present it is sufficient to ask, in relation to the βαζηιεύο and the Royal Stoa, if the Royal Stoa was the ―official seat‖ of the βαζηιεύο, why should it have been located at the North West corner of the Agora, at the point where the city‘s busiest thoroughfare turned into the Agora from the road, the Panathenaic Way or Dromos, leading from the city‘s main gates. It seems a most unpromising site for the office of ―one of the principal magistrates of the city‖, if Shear and Wycherley were correct in so describing the βαζηιεύο.940 Consider in this regard Shear himself:

―For his new office, the King adopted the covered portico of a stoa, a plan not intrinsically well adapted to the conduct of state affairs, where confidential matters would often need to be transacted and a modicum of privacy was always welcome.‖941

The date of the Royal Stoa is an acknowledged uncertainty.942 The author of the Ath. Pol. believed that the Royal Stoa was in existence in Solon‘s time.943 However, a date after 500 BCE, and possibly well after, must now be considered.944 It is possible that in some aspect the

939 p. 257-258. See Camp (1992/1986) 72 and note 59. For the bases see above pp. 168-169 and below p. 265-267. 940 Thompson and Wycherley (1972) 90. 941 Shear (1971). There is incidentally no foundation in the ancient sources for the proposition that ―the King‖ adopted, commissioned, designed or had anything whatsoever to do with acquiring an official building for himself. 942 Camp (2001) 44. Camp originally offered a tentative 6th century date (Camp (1986) 53-54 and 100-101) but see below note 945. 943 Ath. Pol. 7.1: assuming he is referring to the same building. If the author of the Ath. Pol. thought the classical Agora was where the Agora had always been so did Diogenes Laertius 1.50 in his reference to Solon laying down his arms in front of the stratēgion in protest at the tyranny of Peisistratos. Note also that the post-Kleisthenic Zeus agoraios who was backdated by Euripides in Herakleidai, 69-71 and by Aeschylus in Eumenides, 973-5. 944 Shear (1971) 249-250, and id. (1993) 427-429, and also id. (1994) 247 note 55; Thompson and Wycherley (1972); Kolb (1977) 107-108; Thompson (1981) 345-346 and id (1982) 136 and note 11; Kolb (1981a); Kuhn (1985) 200ff; von Steuben (1989) 82-83 and note 33; Rhodes (1992) 103. 206

building post-dates the Stoa of Zeus for which the last quarter of the 5th century is an accepted date.945 Needless to say, the date of the Royal Stoa cannot give a reliable date for the βαζηιεύο. However, the date of the Stoa is relevant to the commencement of the civic use of the land that would become the site of the classical agora. The dates suggested range from c.500 to after the Persian Wars, and perhaps even significantly later. 946

Hölscher drew an inference from what at the time of his writing was the possibility of a mid-6th century date for the Royal Stoa, describing the office of βαζηιεύο as ―this most traditional of all Athenian offices since the earliest times . . .‖ He inferred that a mid-6th century date would have involved great ―conscious planning‖ as it would have meant disturbing tradition by moving the seat of the office from the Boukolion in the old agora.947 He assumed that the Royal Stoa existed from the inception of the office of the βαζηιεύο. Unless Hölscher believed that the office had diminished by the early 5th century, presumably the same ―conscious planning‖ would have been required for the transfer of the office from the Boukolion in the 5th century. Hölscher draws attention, perhaps inadvertently, to the possibility that if the seat of the βαζηιεύο could be shuffled around the office was not so revered, or alternatively that the Royal Stoa was not the seat of the βαζηιεύο, there being no known good reason to move him from the Boukolion, and perhaps good reasons not to. The idea that the βαζηιεύο was associated in the public mind with all that was truly ancient and sacred is not consistent with his official premises being relocated to new purpose built accommodation, unless to establish a permanent reminder of the inferiority of the annual βαζηιεύο relative to the real βαζηιεύο next door, Zeus.

Leaving aside the Royal Stoa, for present purposes it is sufficient to observe that none of the earliest structures in what was to become the classical agora are held to be datable to earlier than the 5th century (save for structures dated to the later 6th century and still standing in c. 500

945 Camp (2001) 104 gives 430-420 BCE. For the possibility of a post-Stoa of Zeus date for the completed Royal Stoa based on archaeological observations of Camp see Raaflaub (1997c) 94 and 102 note 10. The full publication of the Royal Stoa awaits completion by Professor Shear. 946 See for a date post-Persian Wars, Papadopoulos (1996) 37 and id. (2003) 271-297 also Miller (1995). After detailed analysis Papadopoulos (2003) 297 concludes: ―The relocation of the Lithos, the establishment of the stoa Basileios, and most important, the erection of the Agora horos inscriptions would now be dated shortly after 480, rather than 500 B.C.‖ 947 Hölster (1991) 364. 207

948 BCE). Reference to some of the archeia of the Old Agora is made in Chapter Three above. Other construction in that area may have included the Thēseion, the Gymnasium of Ptolemy and perhaps an assembly area; however, it is believed that none of these would have predated the 5th century.

The extant building record does not provide evidence for the existence of complex public administration in Athens prior to the 5th century, nor does the extant literary and epigraphic record in relation to economic activity.

(ii) Economic Activity

There is no significant extant record of writing in relation to economic activity for the greater part of the archaic period.949 There is good reason to think from the want of evidence that there was no significant state-run economic activity in Athens prior to the 5th century.950 Consider in that context monetization.951

Whilst monetization is not necessarily coincident with coinage, without widespread monetization a market economy is limited to the possibilities of barter, and without coinage it is subject to the severe constraints of ad hoc exchanges of value. Whilst it cannot be asserted that there was no degree of monetization in Athens before the production of the Athenian Wappenmünzen in the mid 6th century952 there is no evidence in Athens before the 5th century of the sort of widespread monetization that would be expected if the Athenian economy was not a Polyani provisioning type.953 Attestations of a ―barley standard‖ and a ―silver weight standard‖ may not be more reliable in respect of date and scale of use than Homer‘s valuations in terms of numbers of oxen.954 In any event, it seems that prior to the Wappenmünzen there was no coinage in use in Athens. Solonic reform of a pre-coinage monetization is not excluded, as it could have been in the nature of some regulation of the weight of say bulk silver used in

948 pp. 104-106. 949 See in general in relation to economic activity and trade: Snodgrass (1980) 123-159; Rihill (1991); Tandy (1997); Manning and Morris (2005); Wees (2009). 950 cf. Shipton (2000) 7 and references. On coin hoards see Ober (2008) 240, Table 6.3 951 For coinage and monetization in general see Schaps (2004) and Meadows and Skipton (2001). 952 For the date see Kraay (1964); Kroll (1984); Dawson (1999); Hall (2009) 250 and references 254. 953 Polyani (1994). 954 In regard to a ―barley standard‖ see Ste. Croix (2004) 33-41. On a ―silver weight standard‖ see Kim (2001) and Seaford (2004) 88-101. For Homer: Iliad 6.235-6, 23.702-5 and Odyssey 1.428-31. 208

exchange,955 but there is no evidence of such exchange. The Wappenmünzen notwithstanding, it seems that not until the introduction in Athens of the owl coinage during the last quarter of the 6th century, was a start made in Athens on a path to the development of a true market economy.956 It appears that prior to that date the scale of market activity was too small to generate the pressure to find a means to obviate barter, or the problems of inherently unreliable non-coin media of exchange. Nor should it be thought that the ‗start‘ was conscious or systematic. We have good reason to think that coinage was struck and distributed irregularly, and that it by no means displaced all or even most non-coin media of exchange.957 Thus, at the time of Solon the ―introduction of coinage or the monetization of economic life played no role: these processes began later and took a long time to achieve far-reaching effects.‖958

It is consistent with the foregoing for it to be reasonable to suppose that from the 8th to the 6th centuries in Athens manufacturing was overwhelmingly the preserve of ‗cottage‘ and sanctuary industry.959 The manufacture of pots may have been different in the sense that the industry itself seems to have had a privileged location on the site of what would become the classical agora.

It is easy enough to create an impression of large scale manufacturing everywhere in archaic Greece by citing the arguable instances of activity in disparate centres. But if there was a goldsmith‘s shop in 8th century Eretria,960 or craftsmen capable of the manufacturer of bronze votive shields in Crete,961 that does not mean that there were such craftsmen (or even that it is more likely that there was) in contemporaneous Athens, or at any time in Archaic Athens. Moreover, in circumstances where we do not have any knowledge of the context of the manufacture of an artefact, we cannot attribute its existence to commercial activity, or to assume the existence in the place where it was found of people there who were capable of making it.962

955 cf. Rhodes (1992) 168. 956 See Snodgrass (1980) 135. For the date of the owl coinage see especially Hall (2009) 250. 957 cf. Snodgrass (1980) 136 and Archibald (2009) 311-312. 958 Stahl and Uwe (2009) 144. See also Van Der Vinn (2000) 147-153; Shipton (2000) 7-12 and references. 959 See Wees (2009) 452-456 re. craftsmen and other specialists in Archaic Greece. 960 Themelis (1983). 961 Hoffman (1997) 160-165. 962 For example, ivory figurines found in Attica that imitate Oriental Astarte figurines: Lapatin (2001) 44-45. 209

These reservations apply to claims made on the basis of pottery manufacture in Athens, particularly in regard to trade.963 Geometric, proto-Attic, middle Protoattic, black figure, and SOS amphorae are all well attested for Archaic Attica. And they can all be associated with other places. There is evidence of the imitation of Attic geometric pottery in Euboea. It is argued that Protoattic and early black figure pottery in part reflect Corinthian and East Greek styles. Aeginetan Middle Protoattic is said to be a synthesis of late Geometric Attic, oriental, Protocorinthian and east Greek traditions. Athenian SOS amphoras, some dated to the 7th century, are said to have been found in Chalcis and Eretria, North Africa Spain, Italy, the Levant and the Black Sea, and imitated in Pithekoussai. Attic pottery has been found in the Toumba excavations in Lefkandi. Euboean skyphoi and plates, and imitations of 8th century ceramic Phoenician silver bowls, have been found in Attica. However, none of this establishes the existence of trade between Athens and the other places mentioned. It is evidence, but not proof, of contact between Athens and all or some of the other places. The contact might have been direct or indirect, and certainly the evidence does not establish protracted or regular contact.964

(iii) Judicial Activity

If the nine archons, for the specific purposes for which they are alleged in the Ath. Pol. to have been needed, were required at any time in the 7th or the 6th centuries BCE, why were 90 not required in the 4th? If Athens was a homogeneous and demographically stable rural community of a few thousand for most of that period, it is difficult to imagine what the nine archons in the conception of the Ath. Pol., as a judicial bureaucracy with the Areopagus Council, would have had to do—it would be not unlikely that generations passed without any, or any substantial, significant community experience of wilful homicide, or much experience of crime in general.965 There is no reliable evidence to the effect that there was.966 The Solonic references

963 For what follows in regard to pottery see Foxhall (1997) 123 and references; Houby-Nielsen (2009) and references. 964 Pace Wees as discussed in Introduction p. 17 above. 965 Attempting to infer behaviour in the past from modern experience is fraught with difficulties but it does not seem out of place to observe here that even today murder rates, and crime rates in general, are in the order of not more than a fraction of 1% of the population, and less in rural than in urban areas. 966 Drakōn‘s Law on homicide implies that there was but only if it was contemporaneous with Drakōn. Drakōn‘s Law is discussed above at pp. 152-156. 210

taken to be in the nature of legal reform are brief to the point of being intolerably vague, not all universally agreed even to be authentic, and cannot be taken to give any indication of the scale of judicial activity in Solonic Athens, whenever that actually was.967 Significantly, they are uncorroborated by so much as a single extant contemporaneous public record (as opposed to an alleged later copy).

(d) The External Environment

It is not evident that Athens was a military power in the archaic period, or even that it had a standing army.968 Nothing indicates the existence there of a navy or warships before the early 5th century.969 There is nothing to indicate that Athens had any incentive to develop a significant or any military or naval capacity, or that it could have done so if it wanted to, before 506 BCE.970

As an indication of the potency of perspectives in this area, it is useful to refer to H. W. Singor, who argues in effect from silence for the existence of a military in 6th century Athens. Thus:

―it is practically certain that there must have been some form of military organization; for instance, the existence of the archōn polemarchos, although not unequivocally established for the 6th century, should nevertheless be assumed for the entire archaic period and points undoubtedly to some form or other of public organization of warfare.‖ (Emphasis added).971

Singor does not say why the ―archōn polemarchos‖ should be assumed for the entire archaic period. He could just as easily have argued, and just as invalidly (not least for the amorphous

967 O‘Neill (1995) 19, for instance, says of Aristotle‘s assertion (Politics, 1274a3-5) that Solon established the dikastērion: ―it seems unlikely that a sixth-century court of appeal would have needed the complex structure of he fifth- and fourth-century dikastērion, . . ." 968 But see for an Homeric context Raaflaub (1997c). 969 See Wallinga (1993). 970 In respect of that year, for an Athenian hoplite victory over Spartans, Thebans and Chalcidians, see Herodotus 5.74-78 and IG I3 501 (Raubitschek (1949): no. 168). For an earlier time it is alleged that there was a confrontation between Athens and Mytilene over Athens‘ alleged colony of Sigeum. It seems the Sigeum affair, if there was one, was like the Kylonian, a family matter, though not this time that of the Alkmeonidai but that of Peisistradai. There is no warrant in the evidence for imagining some large scale mobilization, and surely Frost puts it at its very highest where he contemplates an ‗army‘ comprised of a small group of Athenian landless poor. Thus, Frost (1984) 288: ―most of them will have been ineligible for what we usually think of as the hoplite census, because of poverty.‖ 971 Singor (2000) 109. 211

notion of ―some form of military organization‖) that we should assume that there was not ―some form of military organization‖ during the entire archaic period. That would point to the non-existence of an ―archōn polemarchos‖ during the entirety of that period.

A militarily well defended Athens is scarcely consistent with what appears to have been a place so easily subverted; allegedly by Kylon in the late 7th century, ‗habitually‘ by Peisistratos in the mid-6th, and even as late as the last decade of the 6th century by Kleomenēs. As for the Kylon affair, the accounts of it are contradictory, vague, made centuries after the alleged event, and confined to a few hundred words at most. In any event, the affair does not bespeak a militarized Athens: ―Since the initial reaction to the coup was evidently spontaneous and the final disposition a family affair, there is nothing to be learned about mobilization from this example.‖972

To the contrary effect, and with no small degree of erudition, Lavelle builds his biography of Peisistratos on a foundation of war between Athens and Megara. Thus:

―though the events of Megarian war of the late seventh and early sixth centuries B.C.E. are not at all clear from our sources, the indisputable facts are that there was a war between Athens and Megara, that it lasted a very long time, and that Peisistratos played some role in it at a minimum.‖973

However, he admits his method had to include his having to employ what he calls ―forced readings‖974 of the ancient sources, and it is apparent from his review of the sources in respect of the alleged war that that they are not only thin, but also, as Lavelle admits in the case of Aeneas Tacticus on whom he heavily relies, sometimes not credible.975 However, although Lavelle completely exhausts the sources he is unable by reference to any contemporaneous evidence to assert the existence in Athens, even during the Peisistratid period, of an ongoing military organization of any real significance.

In respect of the ease of Peisistratos‘ three takeovers of Athens, either we should consider Herodotus to be giving essentially worthless accounts of Peisistratos‘ manner of coming to

972 Frost (1984) 287. 973 Lavelle (2005) 184. 974 Lavelle (2005) 184. 975 Lavelle (2005) 30-36 and regarding Aeneas 31. 212

power, or we have to assume that all that Herodotus tells us by way of detail was essentially all that Peisistratos had to do.976 It is significant too that if the Acropolis was taken so was Attica.977

Morris‘ middling ideology is to what Raaflaub attributes the rudiments of the egalitarianism that would express itself in demokratia. He traces this ideology manifested in the ―farmers fighting in the hoplite phalanx‖ far back into the Archaic period.978 But he does not say that it can be traced so far in Athens, and Morris himself makes an exception for Athens: the middling ideology there was displaced by an elitist ideology.979

Therefore, it seems that in archaic Athens there was no call for a polemarch before about the end of the 6th century.

E Conclusion to this Chapter.

It is unlikely that the institutions of nine archons, and specifically the leading triarchy, existed in archaic Athens in any form recognizable in what the Ath. Pol. describes in respect of them. But as the 5th century progressed Athens grew dramatically in size and complexity.980 Consider Caneiro as to the effects:

―. . . if a society does increase significantly in size, and if at the same time it remains unified and integrated, it must elaborate its organization.‖981

It is likely that such elaboration in Athens would have involved some degree of trial and error over generations. In fact the extant record, if it can be believed, reveals such a process in Athens from the end of the 6th century through the first half of 5th century, including the

976 Herodotus, 1.59.5. 1.60.4. 1.63.2. Cawkwell‘s answer might be to rely on Herodotus: ―Herodotus recorded without rationalizing and was near enough to the events of 560 to 510 B.C. to learn by inquiry (ίζηνξίε, as he termed it) a good deal about them.‖ Cawkwell (1995) 74. However, there are at least two problems with suspending scepticism with regard to Herodotus in relation to Peisistratos: thus, see Blok (2000) on contradictions and inconsistencies, and Lavelle (2005) 9-13 on Herodotean bias. 977 Consider Kiegeland (1993) 54: ―Wer im Besitz der Akropolis ist, der ist im Besitz der Stadt‖. 978 Raaflaub (1997a) 45 and references. Note Robinson‘s reservations in regard to Morris‘ middling ideology theory: Robinson (1997) 66-67. 979 See above pp. 180-181 note 805. 980 See Raaflaub (1997a) 47ff. and note some evidence from Herodotus and Thucydides for population increase in Cawkwell (1995) 80-81. 981 Caneiro (1967) 239. 213

982 ‗reforms‘ of Ephialtes of 462 BCE. Perhaps crucial in all this was Persia and the type of monarchy it represented. The history is well enough known:

―The Power of Darius eventually won out, and this prompted the extension of Persian demand for submission more widely [that is, beyond Ionia] among the Greeks, and among them especially to Athens.‖983

―The Athenians . . . embraced the problem of championing the liberty of all Ionians including those who inhabited the shores of Asia.‖ 984

The Athenians, who would fight the Persians for a generation, were fighting not just a military power but also an ideology, theocratic monarchy, underpinning a monarch they despised and knew by the title βαζηιεύο, indeed perhaps as ‗βαζηιεύο βαζηιέσλ‘.985 It was an ideology that had disappointed the Athenians when the Lydian Mermnad dynasty fell to Cyrus:

―The foolish simplicity that Greeks now ascribed to Lydians and Phrygians lay not in the reverence of sovereignty, but in the idea that any living man could be its perfect embodiment . . . In time, as the Greeks became more resentful and more fearful of the power of Persian kings, they also became more derisive of those who lived in Asia and who respected the sovereignty of its monarchies.‖986

A serendipitous conjunction of events had combined a weakly integrated society, thus one open to large scale reorganization, with a massive external threat by the hereditary monarchy that the Peisistratid had looked like as if it might become. The Tyrant Slayers would come to stand not just for the removal of the Peisistratid monarchy, but also for the resolve to resist the worse one, hereditary and theocratic, on the other side of the Aegean. ―The Tyrannicide had been institutionalized by the time of or shortly after Marathon as a symbol of Athenian resistance to the Peisistratids and to the Persians . . .‖987

982 Rhodes (1992) 309-319; Raaflaub (1997a) 47ff. 983 Munn (2006) 356. 984 Munn (2006) 357. 985 See Griffiths (1953) 146 and note 17. 986 Munn (2006) 46. See also Robinson (1997) 45ff. 987 Lavelle (1993) 37. 214

Into this mix was thrown the enormous organizational demands of meeting and defeating the Persian threat. With all this, if Athens were to be successful, an interesting socio-political structural outcome was inevitable. Consider in this context Robinson in regard to the early Greek ‗democracies‘: ―Most early popular governments do, however, share one feature regarding their genesis: they arose as a result of an extraordinary political crisis.‖988

Thus, it may be speculated that it was during this period, late 6th century to mid 5th, that the institution of the nine archons was established, or formally and permanently instituted, first the triarchy and later the thesmothetai (to meet increasing administrative need) in form and with functions, not identical to but at least recognizable, in the account given a century and a half or so later in the Ath. Pol. Hence, it was only during this period that Athens can be said to have become a state having permanent institutions perceived by its citizens, including the thētes, as serving their interests as a whole, and not solely the interests of those who exercised power; institutions that were demonstrably capable of evolving and adapting.989 In respect of the time prior to that Athens might thus be conceived of as still essentially pre-institutional; a succession of monarchies, albeit weak on the scale of types of monarchy;990 the monarchs, in general, mere primi inter pares, perhaps reflecting ad hoc coalitions of ruling elites from dominant families.991 The historical record of archons of the 7th and 6th centuries BCE is not inconsistent with an irregular succession of monarchic incumbencies.

As to the thētes, Ath. Pol. 7.4 asserts their exclusion from the archonship, but implies that the exclusion was not enforced. It may or may not be relevant in this context that the mid-4th century βαζηιεύο Theogenēs was poor because we do not know whether he was of the class of thētes, and because, even if he was, we do not know by when the laxity implied in the Ath. Pol. had taken effect.992 There can be little doubt though that ἰζνλνκία and ἐιεπζεξία were by mid 5th century not class privileges, but the entitlement of all citizens, however penurious.993

988 Robinson (1997) 129. 989 cf. definition of ‗state‘ at p. 177-182 above. 990 As discussed above pp. 65-69. 991 See Camp (1994) re. the Alkmaionidai and Peisistradai. 992 On the ‗poverty‘ of Theogenēs and its consequences see below pp. 266-267. 993 See Thucydides 2.34-2.46 (Pericles Funeral Oration) and Euripides, Suppliants, 404-410. See in general Raaflaub (1997c) and references. 215

The monarchs may well have borne the title βαζηιεύο.994 The possibility of this title in Athens is enhanced, because indicative of what was possible though not proved or necessarily made more likely, by the fact that according to Herodotus, Kypselos the tyrant of Corinth,995 Polykratēs the tyrant of Samos,996 Battos of Kyrēnē,997 and arguably Kleisthenēs of Sikyōn,998 were all referred to as ‗βαζηιεύο‘. In addition, Aristotle refers to Pheidōn of Argos as βαζηιεύο999 and in Plutarch there is evidence that Pittakos, the tyrant of Mytilēnē, was referred to as βαζηιεύο.1000

The monarchs of archaic Athens may have been dynasts, or represented at least in part an unstable succession of usurpers, with intermittent fission,1001 following the sort of pattern that is predicted for a weakly integrated society by models of sequential hierarchy or heterarchy.1002 They were not all primi inter pares because Drakōn, Solon, Peisistratos, and Kleisthenēs have come down to us as rulers with far reaching powers. Whilst there are far from enough known reliable facts with which to test models, it can be said that even in very broad outline there is a late 7th century to late 6th century pattern of strength and weakness: the monarchies of Drakōn, Solon, Peisistratos, and Kleisthenēs each portrayed as strong and corrective following periods of weakness. The attempt to reconcile this portrayal with the coexistence of the traditional conception of the archonship leads to contradiction, as in for instance:

―[b]ut Peisistratos ruled in accordance with the law, only making sure that the archons were friends of his (Thucydides, VI 54, 6). Consequently the popular institutions kept working in a sort of ‗guided democracy‘ and the Solonian tradition could be restored on the eventual fall of the Peisistratid tyranny since

994 cf. Ogden (1997) 150 and references. 995 Herodotus, 5.92E.2. Nicholas of Damascus, F57.6FGrH90, makes the same claim. 996 Herodotus, 3.42.3 997 Herodotus, 4.154.1 998 Arguing from 5.67.1 an inference that Kleisthenēs had referred to himself as βαζηιεύο. 999 Aristotle, Politics, 1310b, although Herodotus 6.127calls him ηύξαλλνο. 1000 Plutarch, Moralia 157d. Isocrates 19.36 might also be noted for what it is worth: ἐθ πνίαο δ‘ νἰθίαο η῵λ ἐλ ΢ίθλῳ πιείνπο βαζηιεῖο γεγόλαζηλ. 1001 With enough supposition and conjecture the post-Solon period of disintegration can be narrated. See Figueira (1984). 1002 Discussed above at pp. 185-188. 216

the Athenians still had experience in how to work the system.‖1003 (Emphasis added).

It is difficult to see how Peisistratos could have been ruling ―in accordance with the law‖ if he was engaged in electoral fraud. And what is the guide of a ―guided democracy‖ if not a dictator?1004 Why should we suppose that Peisistratos was not of the same nature as Kleisthenēs: ―an opportunist who would try anything for political power . . .‖?1005

Making ‗βαζηιεύο‘ the title of an annual office available to all, or at least nearly all, would have neutralized the political potency of the title. The ‗king‘ would be permanently imprisoned by quotidian obligation; be regulated pursuant to law; and, be annually replaced, the title retained not from regard for an ancestral past, the story of which was only beginning to be constructed, but from fear based on what the Athenians actually knew from recent memory.

In this speculative scenario, Ath. Pol. 3.3 is based on events that occurred only a century and a half or so before its time, and memory of which had been ever more imperfectly orally transmitted over generations before the first attempts at an ancestral ‗history‘ in perhaps the late 5th century.1006 Orally transmitted memory should not be thought to have been able to recall such events if they occurred much before the end of the 6th century BCE and it seems unreasonable to think that the author of the Ath. Pol. consciously confected a provenance for the office of annual βαζηιεύο.

1003 O‘Neill (1995) 21. 1004 Should we consider the Democratic People‘s Republic of Korea a guided democracy— after all the North Koreans do enjoy a guided vote? Note also Lavelle‘s use of the oxymoron ―democratic tyrant‖ both in relation to Peisistratos and Solon: Lavelle (2005) 16, 92, 93. 1005 O‘Neill (1995) 30. 1006 See Finley at p. 92, and see p. 93 note 411 above, and Humphries at p. 92 above. 217

CHAPTER SIX

The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο CONTENTS A The Demosthenic Period Sources 218 B πνιηηεία and ἄξρσλ 219 (a) πνιηηεία in the ancient sources 219 (b) ἄξρσλ in the ancient sources 223 (c) Constitution 226 (i) What is a Constitution? 226 (ii) Useful fictions 231 (iii) Constitutions and Political Sovereignty 232 C The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο 234 (a) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο in the Ath. Pol. 234 (b) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and Herakleides 241 (c) Against Neaira 242 (d) Epigraphical Evidence of the Nine Archons 242 (i) Agora XVI 56(3) 242 (ii) IG II2 334 243 (e) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and the leasing of temenē 243 (f) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and public ritual 248 (i) Chapter 57.1 of the Ath. Pol. 248 (ii) Festival Activity 251 (iii) The ‗Marriage‘ to Dionysos 255 (iv) Sacrificial activity 255 (v) Ancillary Sacred Matters 256 (g) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and Legal Procedure 259 (i) Impiety 261 (ii) Disputes over Priesthoods 262 (iii) Homicide 263 E The Known Demosthenic βαζηιεῖο 264 (a) Philōn of Chollēidai 265 (b) Exēkestidēs 265 (c) Theogenēs of Erchia 266

218

CHAPTER SIX

The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο

―Ni pourpre ni sceptre ne sont attestés à propos du roi athénien de l'époque classique‖.1007

A The Demosthenic Period Sources1008

In respect of the βαζηιεύο we are not necessarily all that much better off for the writings of the period c. 380 to c. 320 than we are in respect of the office in the three preceding decades.

From about 380 BCE to about 350 BCE essentially all we have are the extant speeches of Isaeus. They give some insight into the role of the archōn but only in the limited context of inheritance. From about 350 BCE we have the extant speeches of Demosthenes, Apollodoros, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Hyperides and Dinarchus, the Ath. Pol., the writings of Aristotle, and the Epitome of Herakleides.

If there were not hurdles enough in the want of evidence there is the problem of how to interpret the evidence that there is: in particular how to properly interpret the language in which the written evidence is expressed.

We probably do not have enough material to confidently track changes in the meaning of ancient Greek words, and this must qualify the usefulness of attempting to understand what particular words meant. That is, unless there is enough material in a variety of sources over the entirety of a relevant period we cannot be sure that the meaning we have deduced from a particular source was a generally accepted meaning in the relevant period, and was applicable to other relevant periods.1009 For example, we get our meaning of πνιηηεία mainly from Aristotle, and in any event mainly from the third quarter of the 4th century.

There is of course the problem of words used in translation, and the fact that they also change in meaning. Even seemingly banal words such as ‗officer‘ and ‗office‘ may well be conceived

1007 Carlier (1984) 329. 1008 By ‗Demosthenic period‘ is intended c.380 BCE to 323 BCE, a period roughly corresponding to Demosthenes‘ lifespan. 1009 Parker (1998) mounts a good case for traceable (at a very broad level) change in the meaning of the word tyrannos. 219

of in modern terms in ways that would have been incomprehensible to an Athenian of Demosthenic Athens. In short, it may be entirely inappropriate to describe the βαζηιεύο as an ‗officer of the Athenian state‘ or conceive the notion of ‗office of βαζηιεύο‘. In any event, such designations, even apparently so simple, demand justification if they are not to be at risk of being a gratuitous or facile use of language for the purposes of translation, making ancient words simply another ‗spelling‘ for modern meanings—meanings more or less unrelated to meaning the words had for the ancients.1010

This issue arises not least in relation to words in the ancient Greek lexicon concerning matters of law and political institutions, for example, words frequently translated as ‗constitution‘ and ‗magistrate‘. It is in this context that it is necessary to consider the words πνιηηεία and ἄξρσλ.

B πνιηηεία and ἄξρσλ

(a) πνιηηεία in the ancient sources

The greater part of what we know about the βαζηιεύο as an office is from the genre of ancient political writing, in particular, writing about the Athenian πνιηηεία. In general, translations of the word politeia fall within an ambit of words to do with state/individual relationships, and concepts of government and citizenship. The word politeia is commonly translated as ‗constitution‘.1011 And since it is the citizen, however defined, who is the primary subject of a constitution, the concept of citizenship is inseparable from that of constitution. Accordingly, politeia can be a reference to citizenship. Just as polis is equated with the citizen body in Aristotle,1012 politeia is equated with polis, thus producing an equation of politeia with the citizen body. The result is neatly summarized by Sakellariou: ―the identification of the politeia with the polis occurs here through the intermediate equations: (a) ‗πνιηηεία = θνηλσλία ηηο‘; (b)

1010 cf. Wallace (2005) 148: ―arche and archōn literally mean ‗rule‘ and ‗ruler.‘ The translations ‗magistrates‘ or ‗officials‘ import a Roman or modern flavour. ‗Authority‘ may be better – although . . . the base meaning of ‗ruling‘, directly attested for example in the Athenian navel arche, should not be forgotten.‖ As ‗authority‘, ‗rule‘ and ‗ruler‘ are modern (as opposed to ancient Greek) words they also introduce a ―modern flavour‖. ‗Magistrate‘ seems particularly unacceptable because of its strong connections in the English speaking world to judicial office. Besides, we do not ―know‖ what any ancient Greek word ―literally‖ means; we can only ever presume to know what was understood even by seemingly simple words. 1011 Rhodes (1992) 89 argues that in the Ath. Pol. πνιηηεία most commonly means ‗regime‘, ‗constitution‘, ‗government of the state‘. 1012 See in this regard pp. 177-178 above. 220

‗θνηλσλία ηηο = κία πόιηο‘; (c) ‗πνιῖηαη = θνηλσλνὶ η῅ο κη᾵ο πόιεσο‘.‖1013 Politeia is similarly used in the Ath. Pol.1014

There are other perspectives. The politeia was conceived of as the ἦζνο (character, disposition or spirit) of the people.1015 Thus, Isocrates: π᾵ζα πνιηηεία ςπρὴ πόιεώο ἐζηη,1016 and Aristotle: ἡ γὰξ πνιηηεία βίνο ηίο ἐζηη πόιεσο.1017

Less amorphous are definitions from Aristotle that subordinate πνιηηεία to ηάμηο. Thus:

(i) ἡ δὲ πνιηηεία η῵λ ηὴλ πόιηλ νἰθνύλησλ ἐζηὶ ηάμηο ηηο;1018

(ii) ἔζηη δὲ πνιηηεία πόιεσο ηάμηο η῵λ ηε ἄιισλ ἀξρ῵λ θαὶ κάιηζηα η῅ο θπξίαο πάλησλ;1019

(iii) πνιηηεία κὲλ γάξ ἐζηη ηάμηο ηαῖο πόιεζηλ ἡ πεξὶ ηὰο ἀξράο, ηίλα ηξόπνλ λελέκεληαη, θαὶ ηί ηὸ θύξηνλ η῅ο πνιηηείαο θαὶ ηί ηὸ ηέινο ἑθάζηεο η῅ο θνηλσλίαο ἐζηίλ;1020

(iv) πνιηηεία κὲλ γὰξ ἡ η῵λ ἀξρ῵λ ηάμηο ἐζηί.1021

Hence, an ‗Aristotelian‘ constitution can simply be an arrangement of offices, although under (ii) and (iii) above it is an arrangement that is in accordance with an unstated principle that makes for a variation of importance amongst offices, and an arrangement that is in accordance with, or advances, the goal of the state. Without more this is a very primitive concept of a constitution (assuming that πνιηηεία is at all open in the first place to be translated as ‗constitution‘). Hence, and by way of example, within this concept of a constitution, to say of the annual βαζηιεύο that he had constitutional status may well be to say very little. It would not mean that the βαζηιεύο exercised part of the sovereignty of the state. It may amount to saying

1013 Sakellariou (1989) 269. 1014 Ath Pol., 4.3, 37.1 and 38.2. cf. Greenidge (1914) 4: ―To us the ‗state‘ is an abstraction which should, when used in its strict sense, express the whole of the national life, the ‗constitution‘ expressing but a part of it. To the Greek the constitution (πνιηηεία) is the city itself (πόιηο) from an abstract point of view; it professes, therefore, to express the whole of the national life.‖ See also Finley (1975) chapter 2. 1015 cf. McIlwain (1947) 27. 1016 Isocrates 12.138. 1017 Aristotle, Politics, 1295a40. 1018 Aristotle, Politics, 1274b38. 1019 Aristotle, Politics, 1278b8-10. 1020 Aristotle, Politics, 1289a15-18. 1021 Aristotle, Politics, 1290a7-8. 221

nothing more than that the βαζηιεύο was a person with official status in Athens. In today‘s terms the βαζηιεύο might then be equated in status with a census taker, or a meat inspector, or any one of a myriad of persons in a modern state enjoying one form or another of official status.1022

Furthermore, in shifting the focus from πνιηηεία to ηάμηο, Aristotle invites an inquiry as to the nature of the arrangement. What constitutes the arrangement? It would surely be constituted by a set of written or unwritten laws that would of necessity be justiciable, and yet Aristotle does not recognize a distinction between constitutional and non-constitutional laws:

λόκνη δ‘ νἱ θερσξηζκέλνη η῵λ δεινύλησλ ηὴλ πνιηηείαλ, θαζ‘ νὓο δεῖ ηνὺο ἄξρνληαο ἄξρεηλ θαὶ θπιάηηεηλ ηνὺο παξαβαίλνληαο αὐηνύο.1023

If the ancient perception of a constitution was that it is a set of principles, and not a law in its own right, there is a problem when the ancient sources make assertions as to the various roles of offices, including that of the βαζηιεύο, under the title Ἀζελαίσλ πνιηηεία. In a modern constitution official roles carry with them express justiciable legal entitlements and obligations, and can be regulated by actions for nonfeasance and misfeasance, and by various forms of judicial and administrative review.1024 If in part or in whole the nature of ‗Aristotle‘s ηάμηο‘ is not clear, either because the ηάμηο is not expressible in justiciable terms, or it is to be taken as no more than a set of unstated principles, there will be a serious threshold impediment to understanding the annual office of βαζηιεύο by reference to modern meanings of ‗constitution‘.

Clearly, the word politeia can be a reference to rules that govern the exercise of political power, and it can therefore mean what the word ‗constitution‘ means in its very broadest sense. But how many and what nature of rules are required to justify the attraction to a set of them of

1022cf. Aristotle, Politics at 1299a25: πνιιάθηο γὰξ αἱξνῦληαη ζηηνκέηξαο (―for often states appoint officers to dole out corn‖). 1023Aristotle, Politics, 1289a18-22. No doubt Aristotle saw the conundrum that constitutional laws as such would have to be made in a non-constitutional context – no one, or no body, would have a constitutional entitlement to make them. 1024 Gordon (1999) 74-75 suggests that eisangelia was used as a form of action applied as a control on officials, and especially generals, and asserts that: ―The Athenian judicial system was designed to . . . control . . . state power in the hands of officials. This function of the courts is widely accepted today as an essential feature of democratic government.‖ The comparison is not valid even in principle. It confuses modern quasi-judicial systems of administrative law and procedure with crude and capricious criminal regulation. 222

the word ‗constitution‘?1025 In this context what does it mean, for instance, to say, as it is said (or as it is arguably said) in the Ath. Pol.,1026 that the βαζηιεύο in Athens was responsible for the Mysteries; responsible in what sense and responsible to whom? Is the assertion a reference to a constitutional arrangement, or something less formal, perhaps an arrangement with no political implications at all? Hence, however much we may think we know about the Mysteries, to say that the βαζηιεύο in Athens was ‗responsible‘ for the Mysteries may be to convey information which by reason of its brevity and want of substance is in the nature of trivia, even if this is combined with statements as to other things for which the βαζηιεύο is thought to have been responsible. That is to say, if we can say no more about the βαζηιεύο vis a vis the Mysteries than that the βαζηιεύο was responsible for them, it might be wondered if it was worth making the statement at all, if to do so is with the intent of advancing understanding of who the annual βαζηιεύο was or what he did.

When describing the nature of an office in a constitutional state Rousseau asserted:

― . . . car chaque magistrat est presque toujours chargé de quelque fonction du gouvernement; au lieu que chaque citoyen pris à part n‘a aucune fonction de la souveraineté.‖1027

There is therefore an issue of semantics where it becomes necessary to distinguish officials who share in the sovereignty of the state, and officials who whilst having some lawful authority in relation to the affairs of the state do not have a share in its sovereignty. Aristotle recognized this distinction. Thus:

ἔζηη δὲ νὐδὲ ηνῦην δηνξίζαη ῥᾴδηνλ, πνίαο δεῖ θαιεῖλ ἀξράο· πνιι῵λ γὰξ ἐπηζηαη῵λ ἡ πνιηηηθὴ θνηλσλία δεῖηαη, δηόπεξ νὐ πάληαο νὔηε ηνὺο αἱξεηνὺο νὔηε ηνὺο θιεξσηνὺο ἄξρνληαο ζεηένλ . . .1028

Hence, to describe the annual βαζηιεύο as an official of the Athenian state is not necessarily to give him a constitutional status.

1025Compare with Aristotle‘s rhetorical question: πνῖαη δ‘ ἀξραὶ θαὶ πόζαη ἀλαγθαῖαη εἰ ἔζηαη πόιηο; Politics, 1299.30. 1026 Ath. Pol. 57.1. 1027 Rousseau, J. J. (1925/1772): Contrat Social, Paris: Librairie Garnier Frères, 278. 1028 Aristotle, Politics, 1299a.15. 223

(b) ἄξρσλ in the ancient sources

Undoubtedly in the ancient sources the phrase νἱ ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο has heuristic value, but the position is not so clear in relation to the word ἄξρσλ. To begin with, the title ‗ἄξρσλ βαζηιεύο‘ is a confection in that it does not occur in the extant ancient sources.1029 More importantly, the word ἄξρσλ, save insofar as it refers to ὁ ἄξρσλ, and its plural form νἱ ἄξρνληεο, along with the synonymous feminine, ἡ ἀξρή and αἱ ἀξραί, are used so loosely in the sources that they do not enable any useful distinction to be made between the officials to whom they are applied.1030 Consider the Ath. Pol. at 55.1 and 55.2:

55.1 νἱ δὲ θαινύκελνη ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο ηὸ κὲλ ἐμ ἀξρ῅ο ὃλ ηξόπνλ θαζίζηαλην, εἴξεηαη· λῦλ δὲ θιεξνῦζηλ ζεζκνζέηαο κὲλ ἓμ θαὶ γξακκαηέα ηνύηνηο, ἔηη δ‘ ἄξρνληα θαὶ βαζηιέα θαὶ πνιέκαξρνλ, θαηὰ κέξνο ἐμ ἑθάζηεο θπι῅ο.

55.2 δνθηκάδνληαη δ‘ νὗηνη πξ῵ηνλ κὲλ ἐλ ηῆ βνπιῆ ηνῖο θ’, πιὴλ ηνῦ γξακκαηέσο, νὗηνο δ‘ ἐλ δηθαζηεξίῳ κόλνλ ὥζπεξ νἱ ἄιινη ἄξρνληεο (πάληεο γὰξ θαὶ νἱ θιεξσηνὶ θαὶ νἱ ρεηξνηνλεηνὶ δνθηκαζζέληεο ἄξρνπζηλ), νἱ δ‘ ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο ἔλ ηε ηῆ βνπιῆ θαὶ πάιηλ ἐλ δηθαζηεξίῳ.

The nine archons are here distinguished as a group, but archōn was not an honorific reserved exclusively for a member of the nine archons. By reason of the phrase ὥζπεξ νἱ ἄιινη ἄξρνληεο in line 5 it is open to argue that even the grammateus to the thesmothetai is to be regarded as being an archōn. It is clear that an archōn can be someone elected either by lot or by show of hands (θαὶ νἱ θιεξσηνὶ θαὶ νἱ ρεηξνηνλεηνὶ).

If a grammateus to the thesmothetai was an archōn we should consider what his functions might have been. Whatever the grammateus did, it must have been different from, and presumably only ancillary to, what the thesmothetai did. As a grammateus he might be expected to have had duties relating to writing, but as he was chosen by lot we cannot be sure that he was literate. No such risk was taken with the clerk to the dēmos; he was elected by

1029 As it appears in, for instance, Schmitz (1851) 155. Ννr until the Roman period does‘―ἄξρσλ ἐπώλπκνο‖. 1030 It may not be just a question of the proper designation of officials as individuals. Hansen (1981) 349-350 argues that ―the boule was an arche‖. 224

show of hands in the Assembly (ρεηξνηνλεῖ δὲ θαὶ ὁ δ῅κνο γξακκαηέα).1031 He had to be literate because his only job, according to the Ath. Pol., was to inform the Assembly and the boulē of the contents of documents (54.5).

Although the Ath. Pol. at 43.1 says that, in general, officials (αἱ ἀξραί) chosen for ordinary (ἐγθύθιηνο) administration are chosen by lot, this does not preclude the possibility that officials chosen for extraordinary administration may, in some cases at least, also have been chosen by lot. The problem is that a review of the Ath. Pol. for the officials chosen by lot, and the functions ascribed to them, does not disclose a basis for distinguishing officials by reference to degrees of exception.1032 The Ath. Pol., by reason of its want of detail, leaves open the possibility that not only a grammateus but that every one of the archons chosen by lot, including the βαζηιεύο, had no more than, or mainly, mundane tasks to perform.1033

Demosthenes referred to a law that proscribed any person ―whether archon or private person‖ (ἄλ ἄξρσλ ἢ ἰδηώηεο) from seeking to have certain laws rendered ineffectual or needing amendment.1034 The implication of the distinction ἢ ἄξρσλ ἢ ἰδηώηεο in the above context is that it was not sufficient for someone to attract the designation ‗archōn‘ alone for the fact that that person was acting in the public sphere. According to Aeschines the law defined an archōn as anyone, whether appointed by lot or by election, having the care of some public matter for more than 30 days; people responsible for public works; and, anyone appointed to preside at court.1035 If this was so, the word ἄξρσλ is semantically no richer than say the modern word ‗politician‘ about which the only universal agreement as to its meaning would probably not go

1031 According to the Ath. Pol. 54.5. 1032 Some distinctions between offices in the Ath. Pol. beyond the mode of appointment to them are that the athlothetai (officials with responsibility in respect of games) have a 4 year term (60.1); the dokimasia and oath in respect of the nine archons is portrayed as exceptionally elaborate compared to what is required for other officials (Ath. Pol. 55.1-5); and, the eponymous archōn, βαζηιεύο and polemarch are entitled to two associates or assistants (paredroi) each (Ath. Pol. 56.1). These differences may or may not be material by reference to some notion of the importance of the respective offices. 1033 Nikomachos suffered the slight that he was a mere under-clerk (ὑπνγξακκαηεύο): Lysias 30.27-28. However, note Gallia (2004), and Rhodes (1991), in regard Nikomachos in respect of whom it is reasonable to conclude that not inconsiderable skill was required. 1034 Demosthenes 23.62 and see IG II2 1629: 233-236 and IG II2 43: 1-53 and in particular the phrases therein: ἄξρσλ ἢ ἰδηώηεο and ἢ ἄξρσλ ἢ ἰδηώηε respectively. See in this context also Lysias 5.3; Demosthenes 23.62; Ath. Pol. 48.2; and Herodotus 1.59 and 7.3. cf. Piérart (1971) 529-550 for an interpretation of ἢ ἄξρσλ ἢ ἰδηώηε in its context above. 1035 Aeschines 3.14 with the more succinct statement at 3.29. 225

beyond its use as a reference to a person who is elected. Similarly, the word ἄξρσλ seems to have meant no more in most cases than that the person to whom it applied was appointed by election or by lot for the performance of duties in public administration. This is not to overlook formal requirements of age, gender, citizen and class status. A βαζηιεύο, for example, was a male citizen probably at least 30 years old, and although formally of a class higher than that of the thētes it is not impossible that he could have be drawn from that class.1036 However, in short, the very frequent reference in the modern literature to the βαζηιεύο as ‗the king archon‘ or the ‗archon basileus‘ is not more informative in terms of what it says about the importance of the office of βαζηιεύο than to indicate that the βαζηιεύο was an official appointment.

In distinguishing the office of priests (ἱεξεῖο): ηνῦην γὰξ ἕηεξόλ ηη παξὰ ηὰο πνιηηηθὰο ἀξρὰο ζεηένλ,1037 chorus leaders (ρνξεγνί), heralds (θήξπθεο), and others, from political officers, Aristotle was in effect holding that the notion of political office had to do with offices bearing responsibility for deliberation and judgment about specific matters, and especially for issuing orders:

κάιηζηα δ‘ ὡο ἁπι῵ο εἰπεῖλ ἀξρὰο ιεθηένλ ηαύηαο ὅζαηο ἀπνδέδνηαη βνπιεύζαζζαί ηε πεξὶ ηηλ῵λ θαὶ θξῖλαη θαὶ ἐπηηάμαη, θαὶ κάιηζηα ηνῦην· ηὸ γὰξ ἐπηηάηηεηλ ἀξρηθώηεξόλ ἐζηηλ.1038

Aristotle was clearly angling at a criterion of political office that had to do with real political power, and at the application of the word ἄξρσλ only to such offices.

The notion of state power is elusive but, as indicated above, there is clearly a distinction between public and private office and their associated respective spheres of power. In political terms public status touches on the prerogative of the state to interfere with the freedom of its citizens. In a state which operates by the rule of law the interference is required to be in accordance with law, but the prerogative remains nonetheless. Hence, we may say that to exercise political power, whether as executive, legislative, or judicial power, is to exercise the sovereignty of the state, by interfering with the freedom of those affected, to act, or to refrain

1036 See above p. 214. On the question of the minimum age for office see Hansen (1992) 60-61where he disagrees with Develin (1985). 1037 Aristotle, Politics, 1299a15. 1038 Aristotle, Politics, 1299a25. 226

from acting, in accordance with their own volition: sovereignty being a ―highest, legally independent, undivided power.‖1039

Reference to the exercise of power in the above context is a reference to all three of Galbraith‘s forms of power: condign, compensatory and conditioned,1040 all of which can be lawful for anyone having the power under the constitution to regulate or constrain the behaviour of the persons (natural and incorporated), falling within what is deemed by the person exercising power to be the state‘s territorial limits. When power, whatever its form, is exercised in that context, it is the exercise of sovereign power. The important point is that the prescription, or the constraint, is in accordance with rules, that is, in accordance with law. The law in this case is of a particular type: public law distinguished from private law. But it is not evident there was any clear sense of such a distinction in Athens.1041

As the word archōn is so loosely applied in the ancient sources we cannot take it to have been the case that because the annual βαζηιεύο is associated in the Ath. Pol. with the archonship, he necessarily possessed political power so defined. In short, we do not discover in the word archōn anything particularly useful about the βαζηιεύο in terms of political power.

(i) What is a Constitution?

Lord Bolingbroke is often cited as having originated the concept of a political constitution when he wrote:

―By Constitution we mean, whenever We speak with Propriety and Exactness, that Assemblage of Laws, Institutions and Customs, derived from certain fixed principles of Reason . . . that compose the general System, according to which the Community hath agreed to be govern‘d . . . we call this a good Government, when . . . the

1039 Schmitt (1934/2005) 17. 1040 Galbraith (1983). 1041 See the discussion in Greenidge (1914) 8-10. See also Rubinstein (2005). 227

whole Administration of Public affairs is widely pursued, and with a strict Conformity to the Principles and Objects of the Constitution.‖1042

However, Bollingbroke tends to blur here the relationship between government and constitution. He may have thought, but he does not say, that a government‘s non-compliance with the constitution renders the government illegitimate, and liable to be disobeyed. For Thomas Paine ―[a] constitution is a thing antecedent to government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its Government, but of the people constituting a Government.‖1043 Thus, a government without a constitution, or a government acting outside the constitution that establishes it, is a power without right. A state in which arbitrary power is not proscribed is a state which has no more than a ‗semantic constitution‘, a constitution whose ―ontological reality is nothing but the formalization of the existing location of political power for the exclusive benefit of the actual power holders.‖1044

Conceived as a mechanism, a constitution can be a set of rules by which it is lawful for certain people, perhaps even a single person (as in a constitutional monarchy), to exercise political power over everyone else. Defined teleologically, a political constitution is a set of rules that achieves some community purpose for its members collectively and individually. In the first case the ‗set of rules‘ is seen negatively; it limits or sets conditions on the exercise of power by those to whom power is given under the constitution. In the second case the ‗set of rules‘ is seen positively as a guarantor of the collective purpose. But at a basic level the distinction is artificial. There is an implied common purpose in any political constitution, the regulation of political power.1045 The distinction then between a mechanistic or empirical definition and a teleological definition is one of emphasis rather than substance.

Thus, a constitution is not simply a set of rules for the exercise of political power; it is also an instrument for the realization of values that are perceived to be universal and beyond the state: the right to life and liberty and, in general, freedom from the exercise of arbitrary political

1042 Letter dated 26 January 1734 reproduced in Armitage, David (Ed) (1997): Bolingbroke: Political Writings, Cambridge: CUP, 88. 1043 Thomas Paine (1791): Penguin Edition (1969) Part I, 93. 1044 Loewenstein (1957) 149. 1045 Aristotle does not state this explicitly but he does refer to constitutions in teleological terms at Politics 1279 a22-b10. 228

power. This is not to stipulate what a constitution is.1046 It is put forward as a lexical or lexicographical conception of a what a ‗genuine‘ constitution is as generally understood today.

It is not clear how the word ‗constitution‘ came to be used as a descriptive for the legal framework of the state as a whole. However, the word first appears in this sense only in the 17th century:

―Whereas King James the Seventh . . . did by the advice of wicked and evil counsellors invade the fundamental constitution of this Kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotic power. . .‖1047

A century later the notion of the constitution as a set of principles is clearly stated by Thomas Paine:

―The American constitutions were to Liberty, what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax.‖1048

The Australian constitution, like that of the United States, is built around certain principles one of which is that state power is seen to be divisible as ‗legislative‘, ‗executive‘ and ‗judicial‘. Thus, in Australia the legislative power is vested in a Federal Parliament (of which the Queen of England is part); the executive power is vested in the Queen of England (represented by the Governor-General whom the Queen appoints); and the judicial power is vested in the High Court of Australia whose members are appointed by the Governor-General in Council.1049

It is readily noticeable that the Queen has a decisive presence in all three of the spheres of power. In this lies a fiction: that there is an ultimate source of sovereignty; an overarching political power. There is an irony in this because the person perceived to possess the most powerful position in the Australian body politic is the Prime Minister, and the corresponding institution is the political party which the Prime Minister leads. However, the office of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the constitution, nor are political parties. That the Queen, through her representative the Governor-General, embodies sovereign power is a fiction, because in

1046 cf. Robinson (1954) 62-63: ―In stipulation we freely make any word mean anything we choose.‖ 1047 See Declaration of the Scottish Convention, 1689. 1048 Thomas Paine (1791) 44. 1049 That is, the Governor-General in committee with certain ministers of the Crown. 229

practice the Governor-General in Council acts on the advice (in effect the direction) of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The Queen is a political dea ex machina who facilitates the overall plot of the constitution, even whilst that plot accommodates a yawning décalage between theory and practice.

The recognition and separation of ‗legislative‘, ‗executive‘ and ‗judicial‘ power is a fundamental principle notwithstanding that the separation is not strictly achievable in practice, and co-exists with the recognition of the Parliament as the highest court of the land. The separation in theory offers protection against the arbitrary exercise of power, in that the independence of each of the three branches can act as a check on the exercise of power by the other two.

The theoretical basis of the separation of powers doctrine was first stated by Montesquieu, and contrary to the suggestion by Finley1050 that the doctrine was anticipated by Aristotle, it cannot be said that Aristotle‘s recognition that a power exercised by the state can be categorized as legislative, administrative or judicial1051 amounts to a theory of the separation of powers; just as Aristotle‘s biological classifications cannot be said to be a theory of evolution. Thus, Montesquieu:

―When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical way. Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of nobles or of the people, to exercise those three

1050 Finley (1983a) 58: ―Aristotle (Politics 1297b35-1301a15) adumbrated the idea after the fact‖. 1051 Politics 1297 b535. 230

powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.‖1052

The legitimation of a constitution also involves a fiction: the fiction of the consent of those governed by it. In the case of Australia, colonial referendums (of mainly white males) were by no means unanimously in favour of the proposed constitution. But the fiction is not that everyone agreed, that is a falsehood not a fiction. It is that the arrangement was and continues to be by consent of the people, as if ‗a people‘ can form a consent. With such fictions we hypostasise, but the fictions are nonetheless useful, indeed indispensable.

We thus have the fiction that the state is a creature of law. The Athenians seem to have conceived of law as something they should make and be all equally bound by, but they have left no evidence that they saw themselves corporately as a creature of law; that they conceived of a state as a legal person in its own right. They appear to have ―thought of law in terms of the state, not of the state in terms of the law.‖1053

Modern jurisprudence recognizes constitutional law and administrative law. Under the former the judicial arm of the state regulates the exercise of political power by reference to the powers conferred by the constitution, and the latter regulates the behaviour of public officials by reference to the laws and regulations that are the source of their specific powers.

The procedures of dokimasia and euthyna are clear examples of the regulation of the behaviour of public ‗officials‘, the former an anticipatory regulation, the latter a retrospective regulation, but it is not evident that the Athenians perceived these procedures to be an epistemologically separate category of law in which the state was the subject of legal regulation.

There is no extant genre of ancient Greek literature dealing with the relation of the citizen and the state in the way that that issue is unambiguously addressed in works such as Kafka‘s The Trial, Koestler‘s Darkness at Noon and Orwell‘s 1984 wherein the state is seen as something to be engaged with as a distinct entity, potentially, even inherently, dangerous to the citizen.

1052 Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1914): The Spirit of the Laws, Translated by Thomas Nugent, revised by J. V. Prichard, London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd., Book XI, 70. 1053 MacIlwain (1947) 37. 231

The conception of the state as a creature of law goes to the very heart of the epistemological framework that governs the narrower meaning of the word ‗constitution‘, a word for which when so defined, there is no ancient Greek cognate, πνιηηεία notwithstanding.

(ii) Useful fictions

The early Christian theologian Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite argued that material bodies attract each other. However, he did not pre-empt Newton because his mover, the love of God, was not quantifiable.1054 Newton conceived of a force invested with mathematical properties, and, to say the very least of it, usefully facilitated an explanation for the tides. Gravitational force is a useful fiction, as are zero, infinity, complex numbers, geometries (Euclidean and non Euclidian) and numerous other conceptualizations when applied by modern cognition to the solution of problems. In law, fictions are made useful, for instance, in the simultaneous coexistence of different and opposed interests in the same property.1055 In commerce, materially valueless media of exchange are accepted for their face value simply by reason of an imagined, continually renewed, universal agreement.1056 Such an agreement as stated above, underpins the validity of the modern Western state, and it puts the idea of the state to use. The modern Western state can sue and be sued; have interests separate from and overriding those of its constituent parts; and exist as a legal entity in perpetuity.

Whilst this is not to assert that elements of the above described type of cognition did not exist in ancient Athens there is no evidence that the Athenians were systematically creative in this peculiar way. In any event, to have imagined Athens as a legal person the Athenians would have had to have asked a fundamental question, and to have answered it by conceiving of the notion of a lawful state: what ultimately legitimized the power of Athens‘ political institutions? Thus, it is perhaps in the apparent want of a suitable cognitive paradigm that lies the explanation that eluded Finley:

1054 cf. Bronowski (1978) 9. 1055 It might be noted that ‗useful‘ fictional interests in real estate led to the global financial crisis of 2008. See Cohen (2005) in relation to the sophistication or otherwise of Ancient Greek commercial law. 1056 Faith is also involved. Consider Armour (2011) 54 paraphrasing Derrida: ―The signature, guarantor of the signatory‘s now absent presence that not only makes checks legal tender, but makes bills into laws (in a democratic system) and turns pronouncements into edicts (in more tyrannical systems), rests ultimately on faith as well . . . And insofar as the juridical system rests on a notion of justice as unconditional and absolute, outside the order of calculation, it too rests on faith.‖ 232

―the great theorists of antiquity felt no need to grapple with the problem of legitimacy, which today ‗figures at the very heart of our concern with the nature and value of modern society‘ as ‗a main dimension of political culture‘. It is not at all obvious why a problem that came to the fore in the Middle Ages and has been important ever since should not have arisen in antiquity, and I confess that I have no explanation to offer.‖1057

(iii) Constitutions and Political Sovereignty

Indeed, most of what is contained in chapters 42 to 69 of the extant Ath. Pol. would have been seen to have been irrelevant to its author if its author had a clear and coherent sense of what a constitution is in our terms. The Ath. Pol. is little more than a catalogue, and incomplete at that.1058 It reflects no theory of sovereignty and does not identify sovereign power.1059 It does not permit us to determine the absolute or relative (to others) participation of the βαζηιεύο in the sovereignty of the state. It neither remotely, or at all, justifies Hignett‘s sanguinity:

―The discovery of the Athenaion Politeia has enabled us to correct some details in the account previously current, and the labours of scholars have elucidated others, and there is so little scope for controversy that any good modern handbook can be used as a trustworthy guide to the details of the Athenian Democracy in its maturity, the democracy of the Demosthenic Age.‖ (Emphasis added).1060

None of this is to assert that 4th century Athens did not have a constitution. It is plain that the exercise of political power in Demosthenic Athens was regulated by laws, including rules about how institutions were to be formed, and cyclically dissolved and renewed. This is the more remarkable for the fact that it was a system apparently not created and maintained

1057 Finley (1982a) 12-13 quoting Merquior (1980) 1. 1058 See on the officials missing in the Ath. Pol. Rhodes (1992) 30-37 and Hansen (1980). See in general on Athenian officials Hansen (1980) with references, and Hansen (1991) chapter 9 and references; Davies (1993) 229-232; and Gordon (1999) 66-85. 1059 cf. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1893) Book 1, 233: ―Ein solches chaos gibt Aristoteles statt einer ordnung. soll man annehmen, er klebe einen haufen zettel, wie sie ihm in die hände fallen, hinter einander.‖ 1060 Hignett (1952) 1. cf. the view similar to Hignett‘s in Frank and Monoson (2009) 243. 233

pursuant to theory.1061 Nonetheless just as Greenidge was able to criticize Thucydides for telling us that ―Pericles was monarch of Athens‖, but that he gave ―no hint as to the basis on which his power rested,‖1062 it has to be acknowledged that the Ath. Pol. tells us even less: it does not even imply the existence of sovereign power, let alone assert the basis of its legitimacy, and where it could be found.1063 However, sovereignty is again a modern idea:

―The theory that a properly governed state is invested with the absolute and perpetual power of sovereignty, announced by Bodin in 1576, heralded a revolution in the medieval polity . . .‖1064

We do not find separation of powers in the Ath. Pol. either. Hansen suggests that the Athenian constitution can be loosely analysed in separation of powers terms so that we can say that the constitutional arrangement contemplated the making by some of proposals to be decided on by others and, if accepted, to be implemented by yet still others.1065 However, the doctrine of separation of powers is not simply about the legislative process to which it is effectively reduced by Hansen. It is about political propriety, and in particular the need to institutionalise the avoidance of conflicts of interest. Hansen‘s whole case falls on the very first of the exceptions he specifies to the separation of powers he postulates for Athens. It is the exception to the principle of κεδέλα ἄθξηηνλ ἀπνθηεῖλαη by which the boulē and the eleven could order summary execution without trial. Hansen proposes a rationale for this: ―In both cases capital punishment was probably applied only to criminals who could be classified as outlaws

1061 A problem with the notion that the Athenians were following some sort of ‗rule of law‘ theory is that ‗rule of law‘ like ‗sovereignty of law‘ is strictly a reification requiring a broader theoretical context if it is not to be a mere slogan. Ostwald (1986) 186 argues that the nomothetai shifted sovereignty from the people to the law. But if anything ‗sovereignty‘ was shifted from ‗the people‘ to the nomothetai. Law is an expression of what has been decided by a sovereign. 1062 Greenidge (1914) 2-3. 1063 Consider also the ambiguity in the Ath. Pol. in relation to the boulē vis a vis the archai: compare 49.4 and 47.1. Consider also the boulē relative to the dēmos: 45.3-4. Note in this context Hansen‘s controversial but cogent argument that the ekklēsia was the dēmos—that the dēmos was conceived of as a political institution: ―I consider that the ekklesia signifies a meeting of the assembly or the place where it meets, but the assembly itself was not the ekklesia, it was the demos.‖ Hansen (2010) 507. 1064 Yntema (1953). cf. Hansen (1991) xi considering what modern concepts are usable in translating ancient Greek: ―I believe for example that ‗city-state‘, ‗constitution‘ and ‗democracy‘ are usable equivalents of ‗polis‘, ‗politeia‘ and ‗demokratia‘, whereas concepts such as ‗sovereignty‘, ‗politician‘ and ‗political party‘ are better avoided.‖ See also Hansen (2010) 500 and note 5. It is not clear what Robinson (1997) 126 means by the ―demos‖ being ―kyrios‖, yet it is Robinson‘s ―single most crucial test‖ for the existence of ancient Greek democracy. 1065 Hansen (1981). 234

(πνιέκηνη) or exiles (θεύγνληεο) or ‗malefactors‘ (θαθνῦξγνη) in the technical sense.‖1066 But there can be no rationale for it within a modern conception of the separation of powers. One need only ask in relation to Hansen‘s rationale: classified by whom and pursuant to what laws? There is no evidence that the Athenians had any developed notion of the need for avoidance of conflicts of interest as a principle of politico/legal behaviour.1067

In any event, the modern doctrine of the separation of powers cannot be read into the structure of Ath. Pol. and accordingly we approach the Demosthenic βαζηιεύο unable to place the office conceptually in a constitutional context meaningful in modern terms.1068 Our political-legal language does not offer an adequate ‗translation‘ for it, and in constitutional terms it is for us, if not completely opaque, at least obscure.

C. The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο

(a) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο in the Ath. Pol.

Chapters 47 and 57 of the Ath. Pol. purport to set out the matters in respect of which the Demosthenic βαζηιεύο specifically had a role to play.

Taking chapters 47 and 57 together, the Ath. Pol. asserts that the βαζηιεύο

(i) brought before the Council of 500 ―the leases of the sacred enclosures, written on whitened tablets.‖ 47(4) εἰζθέξεη δὲ θαὶ ὁ βαζηιεὺο ηὰο κηζζώζεηο η῵λ <ηε>κελ῵λ, ἀλαγξάςαο ἐλ γξακκαηείνηο ιειεπθσκέλνηο.

(ii) had duties in respect to the Mysteries, the Lenaion Dionysia, the torch races and in general, all the ancestral sacrifices;

(iii) received allegations of impiety, disputes over priestly rites, and disputes over sacred rites for the ancient families and the priests;

1066 Hansen (1981) 354. 1067 The herm base of Exēkestidēs may indicate some nepotism with Nikokrates as paredros, the son of the βαζηιεύο Exēkestidēs. Was Dionysios as paredros also the brother of the βαζηιεύο Miltiades referred to on the herm base of Miltiades? Demosthenes 21-178 refers to the archōn Charikleidēs as having his son as paredros. Importantly see Lofberg (1917) passim. 1068 This is consistent with the legacy of Plato and Aristotle in the field of political philosophy. Thus, Finley (1983a): ―They do not and cannot tell us what the Greeks generally understood by legitimacy, political obligation or proper political behaviour; they only tell us why the Greeks were held to have persistently and unavoidably misunderstood what they were doing and why they were doing it.‖ 235

(iv) attended upon homicide trials of various categories of homicide and wounding not heard by the Areopagus Council, the court at the Palladion, the court at the Delphinion, or at Phreato. That is to say, he did not attend upon trials in respect of homicide and wounding where the action was for

(a) wilful homicide or wounding (heard by the Areopagus Council);

(b) unintentional homicide, intent to kill, homicide of a resident alien or a foreigner (heard at the Palladion);

(c) justifiable homicide as in the killing by a man of an adulterer caught in the act, or homicide by mistake in war, or homicide in an athletic contest; or

(d) homicide or wounding by someone exiled for involuntary homicide (heard at the Phreato);

(v) in respect of those homicide and wounding cases upon which he did attend (save for homicide caused by inanimate objects) he had some greater role (εἰζάγεη δ‘ ὁ βαζηιεύο) relative to those (the ἐθέηαη) appointed for these cases (δηθάδνπζη δ‘ νἱ ιαρόληεο ηαῦη‘ ἐθέηαη) and the matters were attended to in sacred precincts in the open air (ὑπαίζξηνη - ‗under the sky‘).

(vi) attended to cases of homicide by inanimate objects (ηὰο η῵λ ἀςύρσλ) and the lower animals (η῵λ ἄιισλ δῴσλ).

In respect of (vi) the text is ambiguous as to whether in attending upon the cases the βαζηιεύο was accompanied by the phylobasileis.

There is corroboration, such as it is, for (iii) in Hyperides:1069

ἀζεβεῖ ηηο πεξὶ ηὰ ἱεξά γξαθαὶ ἀζεβείαο πξὸο ηὸλ βαζηιέα. — θαῦιόο ἐζηη πξὸο ηνὺο ἑαπηνῦ γνλεῖο· ὁ ἄξρσλ ἐπὶ ηνύηνπ θάζεηαη. — παξάλνκά ηηο ἐλ ηῆ πόιεη γξάθεη· ζεζκνζεη῵λ ζπλέδξηνλ ἔζηη.

The foregoing review of the Athenaion Politeia contains what the Ath. Pol. has to say specifically and expressly about the Demosthenic βαζηιεύο.1070 Self-evidently it is not much,

1069 Hyperides, In Defence of Euxenippos, lines 13–14. 236

and what can be made of it as to what real power the βαζηιεύο had is considered below.1071 However, as it is the object of the present analysis to see what can be reliably learnt about the βαζηιεύο from the Ath. Pol., it is appropriate now to look at Aristotle‘s elliptical references to the office of βαζηιεὺο. Except where the context suggests otherwise, or it is expressly stated to be otherwise, whatever is said below about the nine archons applies equally to the βαζηιεύο.

Chapters 55 and 56 of the Ath. Pol. deal generally with the nine archons as a group: thus, the Ath. Pol. elliptically asserts in respect of the βαζηιεύο that he

(i) was at the time of the Ath. Pol.‘s writing chosen by lot (55.1); and

(ii) had the benefit of two ‗assistants‘ (paredroi) whom the βαζηιεύο himself was able to nominate. and who appear not otherwise to have been subject to any process of election, but who were

(a) examined by some judicial procedure before they began to act; and

(b) required to submit accounts, though it is not stated to whom.(56.1)1072

From the Ath. Pol.‘s description of what its author claims to have been the constitution from the removal of the tyranny of the thirty to the time of the Ath. Pol.‘s writing, the following inferences can be drawn in regard to the βαζηιεύο:

(i) the appointment of the βαζηιεύο was by lot (43.1) and;

(ii) the βαζηιεύο was chosen (55.1) out of a tribe as a whole (ἐθ η῅ο θπι῅ο ὅιεο) (62.1) as opposed to from a deme;

(iii) in respect to the manner of the appointment of the βαζηιεύο, the office of the βαζηιεύο is indistinguishable from that of each of the other 8 archons, and the clerk to the Thesmothetai (55.1). However, it is distinguishable from

1070The βαζηιεύο appears to be mentioned in column 33 at line 28 of the extant Ath. Pol. fragments but to no effect that is substantive for present purposes. See however Sandys (1893) 243 note 27. 1071 pp. 248-250. 1072 On the functions in general of the of the paredroi the extant sources are silent as to specifics but see Aeschines 1.158 regarding a paredros Aristophōn; Demosthenes 21.178 (and scholion thereto), 58.32 regarding a paredros Mnēsarxidēs; Isaeus 6.32; IG II2 1230 (see also note 1152 below). In general, see Carlier (1984) 328 and, especially, Kapparis (1998). 237

(a) 43.1-2: the military treasurer (ηακίνπ ζηξαηησηηθ῵λ), those in charge (ἐπηκειεηνῦ) of the Theoric Fund (η῵λ ἐπὶ ηὸ ζεσξηθὸλ), those in charge of wells (springs?) (ηνῦ η῵λ θξελ῵λ) and all military offices (θαὶ ηὰο πξὸο ηὸλ πόιεκνλ ἁπάζαο), who were elected by vote and held office from one Panathenaic festival to the next;

(b) 44.4: the offices of generals and hippeis and all other military offices (ἀξραηξεζίαο ζηξαηεγ῵λ θαὶ ἱππάξρσλ θαὶ η῵λ ἄιισλ η῵λ πξὸο ηὸλ πόιεκνλ ἀξρ῵λ), these being elected in the ekklēsia, and in whatever manner is fancied by the people (θαζ‘ ὅ ηη ἄλ ηῶ δήκῳ δνθῆ);

(c) 62.1: the members of the boulē and the guards(?) (thus: θξνπξ῵λ) who were chosen by lot not out of the tribe as a whole, but from the demes;

(d) 54.3: a prytany clerk (thus: γξακκαηέα ηὸλ θαηὰ πξπηαλείαλ θαινύκελνλ) who was elected by the ekklēsia by open vote;

(e) 54.7: ten sacrificers of certain offerings (νἳ ζπζίαο . . . ηηλαο ζύνπζη) who were chosen by lot by the ekklēsia;

(f) 57.1: those who take charge with the βαζηιεύο (thus: κεηὰ η῵λ ἐπηκειεη῵λ) of the mysteries elected by open vote in the ekklēsia.

(g) 53 and 54: numerous and varied prima facie petty officials elected by the ekklēsia or the boulē.

(iv) as one of a group of ten officials, 9 archons and a clerk, the βαζηιεύο was chosen from one of the 10 tribes (θαηὰ κέξνο ἐμ ἑθάζηεο θπι῅ο), 55.1.

(v) in respect of (iv) the βαζηιεύο is indistinguishable from the other 8 archons and the clerk to the Thesmothetai;

(vi) the βαζηιεύο as appointee was examined for his suitability for office by the boulē and again in a court (θαὶ πάιηλ ἐλ δηθαζηεξίῳ), 55.2; 238

(vii) in respect of (vi) the βαζηιεύο was indistinguishable from the other 8 archons, but not from the clerk to the Thesmothetai who was examined for suitability by a court only (ἐλ δηθαζηεξίῳ κόλνλ) 55.2;

(viii) the βαζηιεύο as appointee had a right of appeal (λῦλ δ‘ ἔθεζίο ἐζηηλ εἰο ηὸ δηθαζηήξηνλ) if rejected by the boulē, 55.2;

(ix) in respect of (viii) the βαζηιεύο is indistinguishable from the other 8 archons;

(x) the βαζηιεύο was examined for suitability for office in the following manner:

(a) by being asked to name his father and mother and their respective fathers and their demes, and testifying whether he had certain shrines and tombs, and what their locations were, and testifying as how he treats his parents, whether he pays his taxes and whether he has attended to his military service obligation, 55.3;

(b) by having witnesses called to the matters in (i) (ηαῦηα δ‘ ἀλεξσηήζαο, θάιεη θεζὶλ ηνύησλ ηνὺο κάξηπξαο), 55.3;

(d) by being voted on by all members of the boulē.

(xi) after being passed for office by the boulē and the law court, the βαζηιεύο as appointee

(a) proceeded to take an oath at the stone and again at the Acropolis, 55.5.

Pollux purports to confirm this, at the same time connecting the process with the Royal Stoa. Thus, referring to the archons: ὤκλπνλ δ‘ νὗηνη πξὸο ηῆ βαζηιείῳ ζηνᾶ, ἐπη ηνῦ ιίζνπ ἐθ‘ ᾧ ηὰ ηόκηα, θπιάμεηλ ηνὺο λόκνπο.1073

In the excavations of the Royal Stoa a stone was found. However, the stone does not identify itself, and although some would argue that it is the famed oath stone, the argument amounts to little more than that (a) there was an oath stone connected with the Royal Stoa; (b) a well worn stone was found in the Royal Stoa excavation site; therefore, (c) the stone that was found is the oath stone. The evidence is not sufficient for it to fairly be said that the archaeological find,

1073 Pollux 8, 86. 239

whatever it is, is corroborative of the Ath. Pol., or that it otherwise enhances our knowledge of the βαζηιεύο.

(xii) the βαζηιεύο was subject to ratification for continuance in office by the ekklēsia which could withhold ratification in the event of a failure of the βαζηιεύο to properly perform his office, 43.4;

(xiii) the βαζηιεύο was enjoined to ratify (θαηαθπξνῦζη) contracts made to effect the sale of expropriated property, 47.2;

(xiv) the βαζηιεύο was funded by the boulē and was subject to scrutiny by the boulē in respect of such funding

(a) directly, 48.2;

(b) by logistαi appointed by lot from their own members by the boulē 48.3; and,

(c) by inspectors (εὐζύλνη), one from each tribe, elected by the boulē by lot and who, by the agency of two paredroi each, received information of any misconduct, whereupon they instituted a prosecution with the local justices, or with the Thesmothetai, 48.4;

(xv) the Eleven were empowered to inform against the βαζηιεύο if he was alleged to be disqualified, as also were the Thesmothetai, 52.1;

(xvi) the βαζηιεύο was subject to audit by a body of 10 auditors, and their 10 assistants, 54.2;

(xvii) in respect of (x) to (xvi) the βαζηιεύο is indistinguishable from the other 8 archons; 240

(xviii) in regard to processions and festivals and associated matters that are mentioned in the Ath. Pol.1074 the βαζηιεύο was not enjoined, or is at least not mentioned, in respect of:

(a) the Dionysia, so far as concerned the reception of the chorēgoi appointed by the tribes for the choruses and the comic poets;

(b) the Thargēlia, so far as concerned the reception of the chorēgoi for the choruses;

(c) the festival at Dēlos, so far as concerned the appointment of the chorēgoi therefor and the chief (ἀξρηζέσξνο) of the thirty-oared boat for the youths;

(d) the following processions: the procession in honour of Asklēpios, the Great Dionysia, the Thargēlia, Zeus Sōtēr;

(All of (xviii)(a) to (xviii)(d) were amongst the matters that fell to the concern of the eponymous Archōn; (chapter 56.4-5).

(e) the sacrifices to Artemis and to Enyalios;

(f) the making of offerings to the memory of Harmodios and Aristogeitōn;

(Each of (xviii)(e) and (xviii)(f) was the responsibility of the Polemarch (chapter 58.1)).

(g) the Panathēnaia so far as concerned the procurement of olive oil for the prize amphoras (this was also a matter for the eponymous archōn 62(2-3))1075 and the management of the procession, the music, gymnastic and horse race contests, the provision of the robe (peplos) for Athena and the prize amphoras, and the presentation of the prize amphoras, were matters for the athlothetai 60.1;

1074 Amongst the festivals not even mentioned, and in association with which the βαζηιεύο might be expected to have been mentioned, if the orthodox perspective of him were true, is the ὀζρνθόξηα. See Harding (2008) 61-63 and references. 1075 According to the Ath. Pol. olives were state property until it was permitted for olive-oil to be paid in remission of rent. 241

(h) the following quadrennial festivals: that of Dēlos, the Brauronia, the Herakleia, the Eleusinia and the Hephaistia.1076 All quadrennial festivals, except for the Panathenaia, were matters for those νἳ ζπζίαο ηέ ηηλαο ζύνπζη1077 (54.7);

(i) the Dionysia at Piraeus and at Salamis which were matters for an archōn and a dēmarchos respectively (54.8).

(xix) the βαζηιεύο received four obols (presumably per day) for food, and for the maintenance in conjunction with the other eight archons of a herald and flute player;1078

(xx) in respect of (xix) the βαζηιεύο is not distinguishable from the other 8 of the Nine Archons.

(xxi) the duties of the βαζηιεύο in respect of court proceedings included:

(a) selection of jurors in accordance with a ticketing system, 64.2-4;

(b) allocation of jurors to courts in accordance with a lottery system;

The archaeological evidence from the Agora excavations is strikingly corroborative of much of what the Ath. Pol. asserts concerning legal procedure.1079

(b) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and Herakleides

The Epitome of Herakleides refers to the nine archons and the βαζηιεύο in its last paragraph. Thus:

11. . . . εἰζὶ δὲ θαὶ ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο, ζεζκνζέηαη ο‘, νἳ δνθηκαζζέληεο ὀκλύνπζη δηθαίσο ἄξμεηλ θαὶ δ῵ξα κὴ ιήςεζζαη ἣ ἀλδξηάληα ρξπζνῦλ ἀλαζήζεηλ (55 §§ 1, 2, 4). ὁ δε βαζηιεὺο ηὰ θαηὰ ηὰο ζπζίαο δηνηθεῖ (57 § 1). θαὶ ηὰ πνιέκηα (58 § 1 ?).1080

1076 To these the Ath. Pol. adds obscurely: ε δὲ Παλαζήλαηα, θαὶ ηνύησλ νὐδεκία ἐλ ηῶ αὐηῶ ἐγγίγλεηαη. 1077 Kenyon (1920) ―the Yearly Sacrificial Officers‖; Fritz and Kapp (1974) ―ten other Commissioners of Sacrifices.‖ Moore (2010/1975) ―Another ten religious officials‖; Rhodes (1984) ―another ten‖. 1078 Thus, Ath. Pol. 62.2: . . . θαὶ παξαηξέθνπζη θήξπθα θαὶ αὐιεηήλ· 1079 The results are summarized and evaluated in Boegehold (1995). See now also Rabatel (2011). 1080 Text and annotations in Sandys (1893) 251. 242

As stated in the Introduction1081 the Epitome is thought to be the work of Herakleides of Lembos, c. 2nd century BCE. The weight of opinion is that the work is intended to be a serious attempt to summarize the Ath Pol.1082 Accordingly, it cannot be said that the words θαὶ ηὰ πνιέκηα add to the functions asserted by the Ath. Pol. to be those of the βαζηιεύο.

Demosthenes (Apollodoros), Against Neaira, is discussed below in the context of reference to the βαζηιεὺο Theogenēs.

(d) Epigraphical Evidence of the Nine Archons in the Demosthenic Period

The few fourth century epigraphic references, or possible references, to ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο are, in general, uninstructive in relation to the annual βαζηιεὺο.1083

(i) Agora XVI 56 [3] lines 37-38 dated to 380-350 BCE.1084

[λ κὴ ἐπη]ζ῵ζηλ θαηὰ ηὸ εἰθόο, εὐζπλέ[ζζσ ․․․ δξαρκαῖο] ἱεξαῖο ηνῖλ Θενῖλ ἕθαζηνο αὐη῵λ· v ηὰο δὲ [δ]ίθαο δη[θάδελ ․․․․10․․․․]

[․․6․․․ ἐ]λλέα ἄξρνληαο ηὰο κεηὰ ηὴλ̣ [ἑνξηὴλ ․․․8․․․․]ε̣λα πεξὶ ἑθάζηνπ αὐη῵λ· v Δὐκνιπηδ῵λ δὲ ηὸο ἐμεγε̣[ηὰο ․․․․․12․․․․․]

Clinton restores the part relevant for present purposes as follows:

δη[θάμελ ηὴλ Ἡιηαίαλ

θαὶ ηόο ἐ]λλέα ἄξρνληαο ηὰο κεηὰ ηὴλ̣ [ἑνξηὴλ εἰζάγεηλ] ἕλα πεξὶ ἑθάζηνπ αὐη῵λ

Clinton‘s translation is:

―The Heliaia is to decide the cases. The nine archons are to introduce the ‗post festival‘ cases, one (archon) concerning each of them (the magistrates).‖

1081 p. 13 above. 1082 See Bloch (1940) 27. 1083 However, see the discussion below p. 265 regarding SEG 19.133 (370/369 BCE) which lists the nine archons of that year. 1084 See Larsen (1957) 52 number 9; Meritt (1963): 2 number 2 and 40 number 41; Clinton (1980); SEG 16.50; and SEG 40.20. See also Rhodes (1992): 636-637 and Miles (1998) passim. 243

It can probably be taken that ‗festival‘ is a reference to something to do with the Mysteries. The unrestored lines are otherwise incomprehensible, and even if Clinton‘s restoration were in all respects correct the resultant meaning is hardly enlightening.1085 Certainly, not much is learnt from it about the annual βαζηιεύο.

(ii) IG II2 334 is dated to c. 335/4 BCE 1086

This concerns the Lesser Panathenaia and may make reference to the canonical nine archons in the context of funding for the festival. If it does, it can only be supposition that the three of them it adverts to are the ‗principal‘ ones: the archōn, βαζηιεύο and polemarch.1087 Thus, Lines 11-12:

θαὶ ηνῖο ἐλλέα ἄξ-

[ρνπζηλ ηξεῖο] θαὶ ηακίαηο η῅ο ζενῦ

(e) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and the leasing of temenē

The Ath. Pol. asserts at 47.4:

εἰζθέξεη δὲ θαὶ ὁ βαζηιεὺο ηὰο κηζζώζεηο η῵λ <ηε>κελ῵λ, ἀλαγξάςαο ἐλ γξακκαηείνηο ιειεπθσκέλνηο. ἔζηη δὲ θαὶ ηνύησλ ἡ κὲλ κίζζσζηο εἰο ἔηε δέθα, θαηαβάιιεηαη δ‘ ἐπὶ η῅ο ζ πξπηαλείαο. δηὸ θαὶ πιεῖζηα ρξήκαηα ἐπὶ ηαύηεο ζπιιέγεηαη η῅ο πξπηαλείαο.

Epigraphical evidence discussed at pp. 157ff. above contradicts any suggestion in this passage that leases could not be for more than ten years. But a more serious problem in endeavouring to understand the role of the βαζηιεὺο in relation to Ath. Pol. 47.4 is created by the verbs εἰζθέξσ and ἀλαγξάθσ.

The authoritative renderings of these verbs in the relevant passage are disarmingly inconsistent. Thus:

1085 See Clinton (1980) 284-285. Clinton does elaborate on his translation, but the restoration and the interpretation are fraught with difficulties, as Clinton acknowledges. 1086 See also Agora XVI 75[1] and SEG 18.13/50. 1087 See Lewis (1959). 244

Kenyon: ―47.4 Further the King archon brings before the Council the leases of the sacred enclosures, written on whitened tablets. These too are leased for ten years, and the instalments are paid in the [ninth] prytany; consequently it is in this prytany that the greatest amount of money is collected.‖

Rackham: ―47.4 Also the King-archon introduces the letting of domains, having made a list of them on whitened tablets. These also are let for ten years, and the rent is paid in the ninth presidency; hence in that presidency a very large revenue comes in.‖

Fritz and Kapp: ―47.4 The Archon King places before the Council the leases of sacred precincts listed on whitened tablets. These leases are also for ten years, and the payments are made in the ninth prytany so that in that prytany the greatness revenue is collected.‖

Moore: ―47.4 the king archon produces a list of the leases of the sacred estates on whitened boards; they are leased for a period of ten years, and the rent is paid in the ninth prytany. For this reason a great deal of money is collected in this prytany.‖

Rhodes: ―47.4 The basileus introduces the leases of sacred lands, recording them on whitened tablets. These too are let for ten years, and the payment is made in the ninth prytany; so most of the money is collected in this prytany.‖

What are we to presume the βαζηιεύο to be doing. To ‗bring before‘, or ‗to introduce to‘ or ‗to produce to‘ do not necessarily mean to ‗place before‘. To ‗place before‘ could mean ‗to lodge, or deposit, with‘. Is the βαζηιεύο to be taken as having lodged the documents with the boulē so that thereafter the documents were in the custody of and the responsibility of the boulē, and no longer a concern of the βαζηιεύο? If so why did the author not use a word such as θαηαιύσ? Or, is it to be presumed that what the βαζηιεύο did was merely to give notice of the leases to the boulē? If so, we might ask what the point of that would have been?

It would be easy to simply cut through the ambiguity and to translate the words εἰζθέξεη δὲ θαὶ ὁ βαζηιεὺο ηὰο κηζζώζεηο η῵λ <ηε>κελ῵λ, ἀλαγξάςαο ἐλ γξακκαηείνηο ιειεπθσκέλνηο as follows: ―Also, the βαζηιεύο, having recorded the leases of public lands on whitened boards, lodges the boards with the boulē.‖ But it is not known that this is what the Ath. Pol. actually intended to say. Boulē is a reasonable interpolation, but the words could be translated to give a 245

quite different result. Thus: ―Also, the βαζηιεύο, gives notice to the boulē of the leases of public lands which have been recorded on whitened boards.‖ The boulē, might not even have seen the boards, and the same can be said for the βαζηιεύο.

In relation to ἀλαγξάθσ it will have been observed that only Rackham and Rhodes have it that the βαζηιεύο is the one who has recorded the leases on the whitened tablets. The others leave that issue open. The uncertainty as to who recorded the leases is exacerbated by the fact that 47.3 of the Ath. Pol., dealing as it does with role of the pōlētai, can be read as running with 7.4, so that the pōlētai can be taken to be the officials who prepare the whitened boards.1088 Langdon argues against this on three grounds, a linguistic ground, an inference, and an epigraphical ground.1089 Hence, first, he refers to the use of δὲ θαὶ which he says indicates the introduction of a new paragraph.1090 This may be true in the particular instance, but even if it is, a new paragraph may or may not be intended to introduce a new subject.

Second, he insists that the pōlētai must be denied a role in leases of state-owned sacred land. Why? His reason is that

―[t]he Basileus, the official who oversees the religious affairs of Athens, brings forth the leases of sacred properties because he is the one who leases them.‖1091

This argument is plainly unsustainable. As is hoped Chapter Three above has shown, there were numerous instances of the so-called ‗sacred‘ in ancient Athens in respect of which there is no evidence of a role for the βαζηιεύο. Most telling is Ath. Pol. 60.2-3. There it is asserted that it was the archōn, not the βαζηιεύο, who was in charge of rent collection when paid as the olive oil produced by the κνξία (frequently translated as ‗the sacred trees‘).

Besides, the characterization of the βαζηιεύο as overseer suggests that he would not have been solely involved in all relevant cases, or even directly involved. In short, even if Langdon‘s premises were true, it does not follow that the βαζηιεύο did anything more whatsoever than to

1088 Rhodes (1992) 556. Rhodes perhaps changed his view on this issue given that as indicated above his translation suggests that it was the βαζηιεύο who did the recording. See also Busolt (1926) 1141. 1089 Langdon (1991) 64. 1090 The author of the Ath. Pol. uses δὲ θαὶ 88 times, and it simply is not possible to infer from its use the principle which Langdon implies. 1091 Langdon (1991) 64. 246

give notice of the leases to the boulē, having had nothing directly to do with the actual leasing, or with writing up the list on the whitened boards. We cannot even be sure that the annual βαζηιεύο chosen by lot, was in all instances, or in any instance, literate.

Langdon‘s argument based on inscriptions refers to IG I3 84 dated to 418/7, and IG II2 204 dated to 352/1. The first inscription is discussed pp. 157-158 above. There it is argued that the inscription has the βαζηιεύο sharing leasing responsibility with the poletai (late 5th century BCE spelling). The problem with reliance on IG I3 84 to interpret the Ath. Pol. is that it is anachronistic for that purpose; it pre-dates the Ath. Pol. by the best part of a century. Langdon argues that the proper interpretation of the inscription is that the βαζηιεύο was solely responsible, but that even if that is not a correct reading, he argues that his reading of 47.4 of the Ath. Pol. relative to 47.1-3 remains valid, and is explicable by a change of practice by the time of the Ath. Pol. The implication, given Langdon‘s perspective with respect to the βαζηιεύο, is that the role of the βαζηιεύο as overseer of the religious affairs of Athens increased over the 4th century to the extent that the βαζηιεύο displaced the pōlētai in respect of whatever role the pōlētai, solely or jointly, had in relation to the leasing of public land. Langdon gives no reason why that would have been the case. However, consider Lalonde who, noting what he asserts was ―the ultimate authority of the Boule and Demos‖, goes on to say:

―. . . The Basileus, as chief religious magistrate, oversaw the placement of horνi in the shrines of the Pelargikon (IG I3, 78, lines 54-55) and around that of Kodros (IG I3, 84, lines 6-8), and the Hierophant and Dadouchos took part in the re-establishment of the boundaries of the Eleusinian ἰεξὰ ὀξγάο (IG II2, 204, line 13). These last two projects were of such importance or magnitude that the Athenians augmented the force of magistrates by the appointment of special commissions of ὁξηζηαί (‗Boundary-men‘).‖1092

IG II2 204 falls within the Demosthenic period. The restored lines 24-26 are as follows:

κα- [ηη]ηηέξσ ἴζσ θαὶ [ὁκνίσ, εἰο κὲλ] ηὸλ ἕηεξνλ· εἰ ι῵ηνλ θαὶ ἄκεη-

1092 Lalonde (1991) 6. 247

[λό]λ ἐζηη η῵η δήκ[ση η῵η Ἀζελαίσλ κηζ]ζνῦλ ηὸκ βαζηιέα ηὰ λῦ- [λ ἐ]λεηξγαζκ[έ]λα [η῅ο ἱεξ᾵ο ὀξγάδνο ηὰ ἐλ]ηὸο η῵λ ὅξσλ εἰο νἰ- [θ]νδκίαλ Langdon argues it is because of his religious status that the βαζηιεύο is made responsible here for the contemplated leasing. However, again the argument is problematical. Langdon admits that the inscription also gives to the pōlētai responsibility ―to let a contract for boundary markers of the Orgas (lines 66-67).‖ If the βαζηιεύο as overseer of the religious affairs of Athens must be presumed to have had sole direct responsibility for the leasing of sacred land, why would he not also have had sole direct responsibility for measuring it, or at least sole direct responsibility to let contracts for the measurement of it? Is it to be presumed that contracts with respect to the leasing of so-called sacred land have more of the sacred about them, than contracts that concern the setting of the location and extent of the land? One would think the reverse would be the case. The fact that the pōlētai are here mixed up with the βαζηιεύο in respect of administration in respect of so-called sacred land at a time nearly contemporaneous with the Ath. Pol. tends to confirm the reading of Ath. Pol. 47.4 as running with 47.1-3. And the less than necessary connection of the βαζηιεύο with respect to sacred land is indicated again in IG II2 204 by the fact that it is the hierophant and the dadouchos (and probably others, but not the βαζηιεύο) to whom the inscription gives a role in the process set up to resolve the disputed boundaries of the ἱεξὰ ὀξγάο. 1093

There are numerous opportunities in IG II2 204 for Demosthenic Athens to demonstrate what modern scholarship describes as the high religious status of the βαζηιεύο, and yet not only is he absent in lines 5-16 and lines 16-23 (where those who are to have the care of the ἱεξὰ ὀξγάο are designated) but it is not he but the Delphic oracle who is to be consulted about what is to be done about the land — indeed, the Delphic oracle will decide whether or not the βαζηιεύο will be leasing the land.1094 Overall the βαζηιεύο appears as a petty official amidst an array of others seeming more important in connection with matters concerning the sacred.

1093 Lines 5-16. See in general on IG II2 204 Scafuro (1999) and references. Philochoros, 155FGrH328, and Androtion 30FGrH324 are the authorities relied on for the historical background of IG II2 204 as a dispute between the Athenians and Megarians in relation to the ἱεξὰ ὀξγάο . 1094 Lines 23-54. 248

The translation of ηέκελνο in Ath. Pol. 47.4 is inevitably connected to the perceived role in general of the βαζηιεύο. It will have not have gone unnoticed that the ηέκελνο was translated by all but Rackham as sacred ‗enclosures‘, sacred ‗precincts‘, sacred ‗estates‘, or sacred ‗lands‘. Rackham uses the word ‗domains‘.

Lines 243-246 of IG II2 1672, dated to 329/328 BCE, are as follows (with restorations and annotations):

ηὰ κεγάια ἔδσθαλ ηακίαηλ ηνῖλ ζενῖλ νὐ κεξηζ[άλ]ησλ η῵[λ ἀπνδεθη῵λ ․․․․․12․․․․․ κηζζσκάησλ], ἃ ἐκίζζσζελ ὁ βαζηιεὺο θαὶ νἱ πάξεδξνη θαὶ νἱ ἐ[πη]ζηάηαη νἱ [἖]ιε[πζηλόζελ θαὶ νἱ ἐπηκειεηαὶ η῵λ] κπζηεξίσλ, Δὐζπθξάηεο Γξαθνληίδνπ Ἀθηδλαῖ, Κ[α]ιιηθξάηεο Κ[α]ιιη[θξαηίδνπ ΢ηεηξη․c.3․· εἰο

μυσ]- εἰο κπζ]ηήξηα ηὰ κεγάια ἐπ Ἀξηζηνθάλνπο ἄξρνληνο κηζζ[σ]κάησλ, ὧλ ὁ βαζηιε[ὺο θαὶ νἱ πάξεδξνη θαὶ νἱ ἐπη]ζηάηαη νἱ ἖ιεπζηλόζελ θαὶ νἱ ἐπηκειεηαὶ η῵λ κπ[ζ]ηεξίσλ ἐκίζζσζαλ

The hint given of involvement of the βαζηιεύο and his (presumably) paredroi in matters concerning leasing, or some other commercial arrangement, relating to the Mysteries, is insufficient to form a view as to the significance of the inscription in relation to the role and status of the βαζηιεύο. The βαζηιεύο, the paredroi, the epistatai and the epimelētai might each have been assigned different functions in this edict, or they may have been enjoined to act in unison.

(f) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and public ritual.

(i) Chapter 57.1 of the Ath Pol

Consider the terms of 57.1 of the Ath Pol:

ὁ δὲ βαζηιεὺο πξ῵ηνλ κὲλ κπζηεξίσλ ἐπηκειεῖηαη κεηὰ η῵λ ἐπηκειεη῵λ ὧλ ὁ δ῅κνο ρεηξνηνλεῖ, δύν κὲλ ἐμ Ἀζελαίσλ ἁπάλησλ, ἕλα δ‘ ἐμ Δὐκνιπηδ῵λ, ἕλα δ‘ ἐθ Κεξύθσλ. ἔπεηηα Γηνλπζίσλ η῵λ ἐπὶ Λελαίῳ· ηαῦηα δέ ἐζηη πνκπή ηε θαὶ ἀγώλ. ηὴλ κὲλ νὖλ πνκπὴλ θνηλῆ πέκπνπζηλ ὅ ηε βαζηιεὺο θαὶ νἱ ἐπηκειεηαί, ηὸλ δὲ ἀγ῵λα δηαηίζεζηλ ὁ βαζηιεύο. ηίζεζη δὲ θαὶ ηνὺο η῵λ ιακπάδσλ ἀγ῵λαο ἅπαληαο· ὡο δ‘ ἔπνο εἰπεῖλ θαὶ ηὰο παηξίνπο ζπζίαο δηνηθεῖ νὗηνο πάζαο. 249

It is again worth considering how the verbs have been handled in translation. First ἐπηκειένκαη (expressed and implied), πέκπσ, δηαηίζεκη, ηίζεκη, δηνηθέσ.

In the one short passage of Ath. Pol. 57.1 above we see the verb ἐπηκειένκαη (care for, be responsible for, attend to, manage, superintend, vel sim.) conditioning the relationship of the βαζηιεύο with respect to the Mysteries; the preposition κεηὰ followed by the genitive to describe the (presumably) working (in the sense of ‗cooperative‘) relationship between the βαζηιεύο and the epimelētai (function organizers?), the Eumolpidai and the Kerykes; the verb πέκπσ (send off, attend, escort, conduct, vel sim.) to conditioning the relationship of the βαζηιεύο (and the epimelētai) with the procession of the Lēnaion; the verb δηαηίζεκη (arrange, manage, influence, vel sim.) conditioning the relationship of the βαζηιεύο with the Lēnaion competition; the verb ηίζεκη (place, set, ordain, establish, fix, cause, effect, appoint, vel sim.) conditioning the relationship of the βαζηιεύο with the torch races; and the verb δηνηθέσ (administer, manage, direct, vel sim.) conditioning the relationship of the βαζηιεύο with the conduct of the ancestral sacrifices.1095

To ‗superintend‘ does not necessarily mean ‗to be responsible‘, and ‗to work in conjunction with‘ does not necessarily mean ‗to work together‘. There is certainly no warrant for the unqualified assertion of Mylonas in relation to the Mysteries that the βαζηιεύο ―had the supreme direction of the celebration‖.1096

A particular problem with allowing ‗responsible‘ to translate any of these verbs1097 is that for someone to be truly responsible, failure should be attended with adverse consequences. Of course the βαζηιεύο like the other archons had to undergo a euthyna at the end of his term of office at which disaffected citizens could hold him to account for his conduct in office. But we do not know if the conduct that could be impugned was confined to wilful misconduct in the nature of acts alleged to be corrupt or nefarious, or whether it could include allegations of incompetence. If he was accountable for incompetence, was he vicariously accountable also for the incompetence of those, if any, who were appointed by him, for example, his paredroi?

1095 cf. Rackham (1952) ‗superintend‘, ‗order‘, ‗manage‘, ‗administer‘; Fritz and Kapp (1950) ‗take care of‘, ‗organize‘, ‗arrange and preside over‘, ‗administer‘; Moore (1975 ) ‗supervise‘, ‗have charge of‘, ‗have in hand‘; Rhodes (1984b) ‗be responsible‘, ‗organize‘, ‗administer‘. 1096 Mylonas (1961) 247. 1097 cf. Rhodes (1984b) 103, translation of ἐπηκειένκαη and πέκπσ in 57.1 of the Ath. Pol. 250

The semantic range of each of the specified verbs to a degree overlaps with that of the others so that in words such as ‗attend‘, ‗arrange‘, ‗manage‘, ‗direct‘, ‗organize‘, ‗conduct‘ and ‗supervise‘, the βαζηιεύο may be contemplated to have had, in relation to the functions mentioned in the passage, legislative, executive or judicial powers, or some combination of such powers, or he may be contemplated to have had no political power at all. That is, we do not know whether, for example, his powers extended as far as the power to make rules in relation to the specified events, and to impose penal sanctions on parties who broke them1098 or, whether in respect to some at least of the functions specified in Ath. Pol. 57.1 he had no more than a ceremonial role. Thus, it is claimed that the βαζηιεύο can be recognized in a vase painting (c.430-420 BCE) as the priest standing before an altar in connection with the torch race at the Panathenaia.1099 Is that all that the Ath. Pol. is to be taken to refer to when it connects the βαζηιεύο by using the word ηίζεκη in connection with the torch races?

The Ath. Pol. does not tell us what the βαζηιεύο actually did in terms that enable us to define him politically. The difficulty is compounded when the Ath. Pol. by implication weakens the power of the βαζηιεύο at 47.1 and 49.4. In each passage reference is made to the boulē by the words: ζπλδηνηθεῖ δὲ θαὶ ηαῖο ἄιιαηο ἀξραῖο ηὰ πιεῖζηα. With these words the Ath. Pol. takes from the βαζηιεύο with one hand before, in chapter 57, it gives with the other, and worse, it does so ambiguously. Thus, the boulē, according to the Ath. Pol., participated in the jurisdiction of the βαζηιεύο, but quite to what degree, other than largely, we do not know.

There is some evidence at least in Demosthenic Athens that a distinction was drawn in principle between the sacred (matters concerning the gods)1100 and the secular. The distinction was recognized in the separate financial administration of sacred and secular institutions. We thus have for example a treasurer for funds for Athena (47.1) separate from one for, for example, theatre funds (43.1). That could of course be explained as simply a matter of

1098 Aeschines 3.27, like the author of the Ath. Pol. suggests that some archons at least (Aeschines is not clear: ―θαζάπεξ νἱ ἄιινη ἄξρνληεο‖) had the power to impose penalties (ἐπηβνιὰο ἐπηβάιιεηλ). We do not know if the Demosthenic βαζηιεύο had such a power in general, and if so under what circumstances, and in respect of what function he could exercise it. However, see below (p. 252) in relation to Agora XVI 56[3]. 1099 Neils (1996) 179 and references therein. It is noteworthy in the present context that the only role the Ath. Pol. gives (albeit only implicitly) to the βαζηιεύο in the Panathenaia is the torch race. 1100 As indicated at pages 131-132 above, the translation of ἱεξνο (sacred) is frequently translated as ‗religion‘ or its cognates. 251

administrative convenience, but the distinction was clear in the practice of the ekklesia to deal specifically with sacred matters (43.6) as being expressly distinct from secular matters (αἱ δὲ δύν πεξὶ η῵λ ἄιισλ εἰζίλ, ἐλ αἷο θειεύνπζηλ νἱ λόκνη ηξία κὲλ ἱεξ῵λ ρξεκαηίδεηλ, ηξία δὲ θήξπμηλ θαὶ πξεζβείαηο, ηξία δὲ ὁζίσλ). In at least this instance, if the order in the text in 43.6 is significant, in Demosthenic Athens the sacred was not of secondary importance. Also, as referred to above,1101 tests for public office required proof of sacred observance (Ath. Pol. 55.3).

(ii) Festival Activity

Indeed, a substantial part of the Ath. Pol.‘s treatment of Demosthenic Athens is about sacred observance. In almost every instance where officials are responsible in some way for a festival it is that responsibility that is first addressed by the author of the Ath. Pol. In the case of the Archōn, the Polemarch and the βαζηιεύο, matters concerned with judicial administration come second in the order of attention given. But at first glance there is no sense that the βαζηιεύο has a pre-eminent role in respect of festival participation. Of the 9 festivals referred to above that were held in Athens, only two, the Mysteries and the Lēnaion Dionysia, are connected in the Ath. Pol. with the βαζηιεύο. And in neither case is the βαζηιεύο portrayed as having an exclusive role. In relation to the Mysteries his role is in conjunction with the epimelētai, Eumolpidai and Kerykes, and in relation to the Lēnaion Dionysia (at least in relation to the procession) it is in conjunction with the epimelētai. There is no elaboration in the text that permits any assessment of the scope of the role of the βαζηιεύο, or of his authority, either absolute or relative, with respect to the other officials mentioned. There is nothing that can be pointed to in the Ath. Pol. that permits the conclusion that his role must have been something more than symbolic, and whether or not it was only symbolic, that it must have been a role with sacred as opposed to secular significance. Consider in that regard Mylonas, who held in relation to the Mysteries that the role of the βαζηιεύο was in respect of the ―order of the celebration, not its religious content.‖1102

1101 p. 238. 1102 Mylonas (1961) 229. 252

Power to Impose Fines

The βαζηιεύο may have had a power to impose fines. The relevant words in the restored lines 34-36 of Agora XVI 56[3] are as follows with Clinton‘s translation:

εἶλαη δὲ η῵η βαζ]-

[η]ι̣εῖ η῵κ πξαθηόξσλ ἕλα θαὶ ηὸγ γξακκαη.έα ἀπὸ λνκε][λ.ίαο ἀξμάκελνλ κέρξη ν ἄλ

κύζηαη ιπζ.῵ζηλ, θαὶ γξάς̣[αη ηνύηνπο ηὰο δεκ]-

[ία]ο ἃο ἄλ ὁ βαζηιεὺο ἐπηβάιεη ἢ η῵[λ] ἡηξ[εκέλσλ κεηὰ β]αζηιέσο ἐπηκειεῖζζαη·

―The basileus is to have one of the praktores and the secretary, starting on the first (of Boedromion) until the assembly of initiates is dissolved, and they (the praktor and the secretary) are to record the fines which the basileus or any of the epimeletai imposes.‖1103

The restoration may be correct, and Clinton‘s translation and interpolations appropriate, but what does the regulation mean? It implies that the βαζηιεύο has a power to impose fines. It is not a law which expressly gives such a power. Even if we assume that the βαζηιεύο did have such a power, we cannot evaluate the importance of the power in circumstances where we do not know in respect of whom the power could be lawfully exercised, and the conditions of its lawful exercise. What would have triggered the right of the βαζηιεύο to lawfully exercise the power? In what manner would the power have been lawfully exercised? Was it the βαζηιεύο who determined guilt, or someone else? If it was another who determined guilt, did the βαζηιεύο have any discretion in respect of penalty? What sum by way of a fine could the βαζηιεύο impose? In short, it can all too readily be overlooked that to the say the βαζηιεύο could impose a fine is without more to say very little, if anything, of real significance.

Furthermore, the βαζηιεύο is not necessarily elevated by a power to impose fines. An image of the βαζηιεύο as performing a role commensurate with that of a modern day parking inspector is hardly consistent with the orthodox vision of the ‗high priest of the nation,‘ Athens‘ ‗supreme religious authority,‘ or the custodian of Athens‘ ancestral religious heritage.

1103 Clinton (1980) 283. 253

Reporting to the Πξπηάλεηο

If what can be inferred from Andokides, On the Mysteries, in about 400 BCE the annual βαζηιεύο was enjoined to report to the πξπηάλεηο on what had happened during the celebration of the Mysteries. Whether or not the βαζηιεύο still had this duty in the Demosthenic period we cannot say on the extant evidence. What was entailed we do not know save perhaps in one instance concerning Andokides and reported in the same speech.

The Action for Ἔλδεημηο

Thus, Andokides asserts that an action for ἔλδεημηο, exercising rights to which one was not entitled, was brought against him (he had attended the Mysteries when allegedly forbidden to do so) with the implication that information of the charge was lodged with the βαζηιεύο.1104 Again that was in about 400BCE. If any actions for ἔλδεημηο came before the βαζηιεύο in Demosthenic Athens not all of them did; a speech of Demosthenes concerns such an action brought before the thesmothetai.1105 MacDowell‘s explanation that ―the notice was given to the basileus because the charge concerned religion‖ raises more questions that it answers.1106

The Parthenon Ionic Frieze

By default, the Ath. Pol. gives the βαζηιεύο no role in the Panathēnaia. Presumably the Ath. Pol.‘s author intended to set out the important duties associated with the Panathēnaia and clearly, if the Ath. Pol. is reliable on this matter, none fell to the βαζηιεύο. One duty that would surely have ranked with the presentation of the prize amphoras would have been the handling of the peplos if that part of the ceremonial element of the Panathēnaia had the significance that it must have had if the central scene on the Parthenon Ionic frieze is in fact an artistic representation of it. The weight of scholarly opinion is that it is, but beyond that there is little that is not subject to debate, debate that includes the correct identification of the tall male figure. Sourvinou-Inwood allowed the βαζηιεύο to be one of three candidates, along with the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus and the priest of Zeus Polieus. She argued that the tall male figure is the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus, and she did so from a proper basis, the search for a

1104 On the action for ἔλδεημηο see Harrison ( 1955 ) Vol. 2, 229-231. 1105 Demosthenes, 24.22. 1106 MacDowell (1989) 142. 254

narrative that contextually explains presence of the figure who she presumed to be a priest.1107 But it has to be wondered why the βαζηιεύο should be considered at all a candidate for the central figure. The fact that he had a role in the selection of arrephoroi has no obvious relevance. The figure is wearing an ependytēs, the decorated sleeveless over garment and a long chiton worn by priests.1108 According to Pollux, the βαζηιεύο wore a short Kretan cloak and, in any event, there is no extant testimony to the effect that the βαζηιεύο was perceived to be a priest.1109 More important is that there is no obvious narrative that would explain the presence of the βαζηιεύο in the context of the scene: he would be out of place assuming that the communis opinio as to the narrative of the Parthenon Ionic frieze is correct. This is consistent with his having no official role in relation to the Panathēnaia, assuming this is an appropriate inference from the extant Ath. Pol.

It may be observed here that the debate about the male figure in the central scene of the Ionic frieze brings into focus the issue of what the βαζηιεύο was in Demosthenic Athens: priest, or official; ceremonial appendage, or judge; an anachronism, or an indispensable element in the architecture of the Athenian polity.

In summary, in relation to the festivals for which a role is ascribed to the βαζηιεύο, he may have been an active decision maker in respect of all the minutiae, or he may have been no more than the nominal presiding state official, with no actual ‗hands on‘ involvement. The latter possibility could include a range of situations, from the βαζηιεύο merely setting policy, to the βαζηιεύο as no more than a ceremonial presence depending on the occasion. In any event, the degree and nature of his involvement must have varied from one function to the next, if only because festivals could involve a variety of elements: procession, theōria, sacrifices, choral dancing and competition (musical, athletic, and equestrian).1110

1107 Sourvinou-Inwood (2011) 295-296. In opting for the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus Sourvinou-Inwood acknowledged that she was following a suggestion of Mantis (1990) 80, 84, 85. She also made a case for the priest of Zeus Polieus, loc cit., 296-297. 1108 See Miller (1989). 1109 See above 164 note 727. 1110 See Parker (2007) 179-183. 255

(iii) The ‗Marriage‘ to Dionysos

As noted above1111 the suspicion that the Athenians did not understand, appreciate or, in general, did not know much about this rite is deepened by what seems to have been the necessity for Apollodoros in Against Neaira to explain the ritual to his audience, to prove it by the testimony of the gerarai, and even to justify it. Note in particular:

βνύινκαη δ‘ ὑκῖλ θαὶ ηὸλ ἱεξνθήξπθα θαιέζαη, ὃο ὑπεξεηεῖ ηῆ ηνῦ βαζηιέσο γπλαηθί, ὅηαλ ἐμνξθνῖ ηὰο γεξαξὰο <ηὰο> ἐλ θαλνῖο πξὸο ηῶ βσκῶ, πξὶλ ἅπηεζζαη η῵λ ἱεξ῵λ, ἵλα θαὶ ηνῦ ὅξθνπ θαὶ η῵λ ιεγνκέλσλ ἀθνύζεηε, ὅζα νἷόλ η‘ ἐζηὶλ ἀθνύεηλ, θαὶ εἰδ῅ηε ὡο ζεκλὰ θαὶ ἅγηα θαὶ ἀξραῖα ηὰ λόκηκά ἐζηηλ.1112

Even the alleged events associated with the Areopagus Council had to be recounted, as what transpired was a secret (ἀπόξξεηνο) according to Apollodoros.1113 It has to be wondered why the details of a scandal as great as Apollodoros paints it, and the details of its aftermath, would not have been well known to the Athenians.

In general, it seems open to construe the characterization of the office of βαζηιεύο by Apollodoros as a plea or entreaty rather than as an assertion of fact. Besides, if the ritual was important to the Athenians why would it have been subject to the very risks that allegedly gave rise to the Neaira scandal in the first place? Why would rites to secure Athens‘ prosperity for the coming year have been subject to the uncertainties of the lot, and the βαζηιεύο‘ choice of wife and friends? By the Demosthenic period the ritual may have become, if not to the ruling elite, to the general populace at least, an entirely meaningless sideshow to the Anthēsteria.

(iv) Sacrificial activity1114

The Ath. Pol.: In the Ath. Pol. 54.6 and 54.7 two groups of 10 hieropoioi are referred to, the first group having a role in respect of sacrifices prescribed by oracle, and sacrifices for undertakings or enterprises, and the second for unspecified sacrifices. Reference has been made

1111 p. 112. 1112 Demosthenes (Apollodoros), 59.78. 1113 Demosthenes (Apollodoros), 59.79-80. 1114 It may be a false distinction to use, as here, separate headings of ‗festival‘ and ‗sacrifice‘: Thus, ―A Greek religious calendar was a list of publicly financed sacrifices, not of festivals . . . the same event could be described as either ‗sacrifice‘ or ‗festival‘.‖ Parker (2007) 161. 256

to the βαζηιεύο and ancestral sacrifices (Ath. Pol. 57.2), and sacrifices falling to the Polemarch (Ath. Pol. 58.1).1115

Again, the βαζηιεύο is not portrayed in the Ath. Pol. as having an exclusive role. Even in respect of those sacrifices (the ancestral sacrifices) that he was enjoined according to the Ath. Pol. to play an organizational part in (δηνηθέσ), the terms used in the Ath. Pol. convey a degree of ambivalence; hence the author‘s conditioning of the enjoinder by ὡο δ‘ ἔπνο εἰπεῖλ (‗so to speak‘).1116 We are thus compelled to consider that in respect of ancestral sacrifices there were some ancestral sacrifices for which the βαζηιεύο had no role at all. As with the festivals, we are not told by the Ath. Pol. what was entailed by the role in respect of ancestral sacrifices ascribed to the βαζηιεύο.

(v) Ancillary Sacred Matters:

(va) The Ath. Pol: There are other jurisdictions ascribed in the Ath. Pol. to the βαζηιεύο which we may categorize as ancillary to sacred matters. The statement of the Ath. Pol. (47.4) concerning so-called sacred leases has been discussed above. In 57.1 ‗the torch races‘ are assigned to him. And 57.2 assigns to him proceedings for impiety, disputes in relation to hereditary priesthoods, disputes in relation to cult issues1117 and proscription of persons ―from things specified in the laws‖.1118 In respect of these jurisdictions it is by no means clear what the extent of the powers of the βαζηιεύο was, or even what the subject of the jurisdiction was about. In relation to dispute resolution, did the βαζηιεύο have a judicial or quasi judicial power of final determination, or did he merely preside over a jury of some sort?1119 Certainly, not all, or even most, such ancillary matters fell to the concern of the βαζηιεύο. The Ath. Pol. does not for example assign a role to the βαζηιεύο in relation to the maintenance of sanctuaries (Ath. Pol. 50.1); decisions in relation to the Panathenaic peplos (Ath. Pol. 49.3); the manufacture of Nike statuary (Ath. Pol. 49.3); or matters concerning

1115 The epigraphical references to sacrifices by officials are collected in Kahrstedt (1936) 288. 1116 The Author of the Ath. Pol. uses this qualification twice in the Ath. Pol. The other instance is at 49.4. 1117 cf. Rhodes (1992) 639-640. 1118 cf. the translation of Fritz & Kapp: ―and he is the one who proclaims that a person is excluded from all customary religious rites‖. Compare with Rhodes (1992) 641. 1119 Rhodes (1992) 640, says of the words: δηαδηθάδεη . . . ὑπὲξ η῵λ ἱεξ῵λ, that they do not imply that the βαζηιεύο ―was empowered to give a personal ruling rather than preside over a court.‖ 257

Panathenaic prizes (Ath. Pol. 49.3). Nor does the βαζηιεύο figure in financial administration concerning the sacred, such as that carried out by the Treasurers of Athena (Ath. Pol. 47.1).

(vb) Selection of Functionaries in relation to the Sacred.

Hearth initiates:1120 A mid-fourth century inscription has the βαζηιεύο drawing lots for the selection of a hearth initiate from random nominees.1121

Parasites: He was involved in the selection of parasites pursuant to ‗the king‘s law‘ (discussed at pp. 160-161 above).

Officials of the Cult of Athena Pallēnis: Again, this is the implication of another part of ‗the kings law‘.1122

Arrephoroi: As also mentioned above, he is said to have selected (ἐπηώςαην) the arrephoroi.1123

Parker considers the use of the hieratic verb significant in this context, however, as he acknowledges: ―everything about the Arrephoria is obscure, even its status as a festival.‖ 1124

The gerarai: It is alleged by Hesychius and the Etymologicum Magnum that the βαζηιεύο appointed the gerairai for the sacred marriage rituals at Limnai.1125

(vc) The Anthestēria.

The βαζηιεύο is alleged to have conferred the prize after the drinking contest.1126

(vd) Specific duties in relation to the Mysteries.

According to Mylonas, the βαζηιεύο ―called the people to a festive assembly at the Stoa Poikile‖. He appears to base this merely on his characterization of the βαζηιεύο as having the

1120 ἀθ‘ ἑζηίαο : see Clinton (1974) 98-99. 1121 Agora XVI 56 lines 41-42. See Clinton (1974) 99-100 and Parker (2007) 220 and 343, and references. 1122 The law refers simply to the appointment of archontes. Obviously this could not be a reference to the other eight of the nine. 1123 Suda 2504. 1124 Parker (2007) 222, and see in general 219-223 and references. 1125 Hesychius s.v. gerarai; and, Etymologicum Magnum 227.35 s.v. gerairai. 1126 See p. 117 above. 258

―supreme direction of the celebration.‖1127 He also asserts that the main sacrifice at Eleusis was ―under the supervision of the Archon-Basileus, his paredros, and the epimeletai, who offered prayers on behalf of Athens and its people.‖1128 Again the specifics of this assertion seem to be inferential.

(ve) Specific duties in relation to the Lēnaia.

The βαζηιεύο may have led a procession.1129

(vf) Exegesis

There is no evidence in the extant ancient record of exegetical practice by the annual βαζηιεύο whether in the Demosthenic period or at any time. Within the orthodox conception of the βαζηιεύο this should be surprising. If he was the custodian of the religious prerogatives of the ancient monarchy, and thus had some special relationship with the divine, it can be wondered why the people did not presume that upon his appointment he would have received some special blessing from the gods making him for his year in office an ideal port of call for advice on matters concerning the sacred. Yet it was others who performed the role of advisors on sacred matters. At the end of the fifth century at least, the Eumolpidai family, for example, seem to have had a consultative monopoly in respect of the Mysteries.1130 Such evidence we have of classes of exēgētai in Athens indicates that at least to some degree in the fourth century it was they who were consulted for advice on the sacred.1131

(vg) The Ἀπαξραί or ‗First Fruits‘ of Eleusis

An extremely lacunose inscription in two fragments, Agora XVI 72 dated to 337/6, appears to be a decree concerning a report by the thesmothetai in regard to Lemnos. It refers to the βαζηιεύο (βαζη[ιέα) and the thesmothetai (ζ]εζκνζεη[).1132 There can be no certainty that the reference to βαζηιεύο is not a reference to a monarch (perhaps an unusual reference by that title

1127 Mylonas (1961) 247. Mylonas extrapolates generously from a scholion on Aristophanes, Frogs 369ff. 1128 Mylonas (1961) 260. 1129 See pp. 106-107 above regarding the Lēnaia, and see Pickard-Cambridge (1988) 36. 1130 See Lysias 6.10 and Andocides 1.115-16. 1131 Plato Euthyphro 4c; Isaeus 8.39; Demosthenes 47.68-71; and Theophrastos 16.6. See also Jacoby (1949) 36-41 and Bloch (1953); Oliver‘s colourful revue of Jacoby and Bloch in Oliver (1954), and Bloch‘s even more colourful review of Oliver‘s review in Bloch (1957); Garland (1984) 114-116. Note that a Euthydemos is referred to in IG II2 47, 26 and 29 as engaging in exegesis. 1132 Schweigert (1940). 259

to Philip of Macedon). However, it has been argued that it is possibly a reference to the Athenian βαζηιεύο in the specific context of a jurisdiction of the thesmothetai under δίθαη ἀπὸ ζπκβόισλ actions brought pursuant to treaties (ζύκβνια)1133 and in which the Athenian βαζηιεύο might have been involved if the matter also related to regulations for the Ἀπαξραί of Eleusis.1134 The argument is thin in the extreme.

(e) The Demosthenic βαζηιεύο and Legal Procedure

The field of Athenian law is another where scholars have sometimes turned a glaring inadequacy of ancient Athenian perspectives into a virtue. Thus, Greenidge:

―the ‗state‘ and the ‗law‘ are both mere abstractions: how, it may be asked, can one impersonal entity support another? In facing this question the Greek showed more courage and consistency than his modern successors. He did not fall back on the theory of a personal sovereign; to him laws are enforced by, but are in no sense the product of a government; he only faintly appealed to the gods, and, while giving laws a divine character, rarely in the historical period gave it a directly divine origin.‖1135

The broader issue raised here was considered above. The specific issue is that of law and divinity.

In 1966 MacDowell said of the βαζηιεύο:

―The βαζηιεύο, or ‗king‘, was the official in charge of all homicide cases.‖

And:

―The βαζηιεύο was ‗in charge of all the most important matters‘ (Lys.26.11). Most of his duties were connected with religion. For example, he was head of the organization of almost all state sacrifices, and of processions and contests of various kinds at various religious festivals (Ath. Pol. 57.1), and he

1133 See on δίθαη ἀπὸ ζπκβόισλ Harrison (1971) 16. 1134 See Humphreys (2004) 123 and references especially Stroud (1998) 32-34 dealing with Ἀπαξραί in the context of his study of the Athenian Grain Tax Law of 374/3 BCE. 1135 Greenidge (1914) 9-10. Apart from everything else Greenidge here evidences a misunderstanding. Within the separation of powers paradigm laws are not a product of government; they are a product of legislatures. Even modern states operating under mere semantic constitutions will, in general, pretend to this. 260

supervised leases of sacred land (Ath. Pol. 47.4). He took charge of legal cases concerned with religious offences, such as sacrilege or impiety (ἀζέβεηα) and false claims to a priesthood (And. 1.111, D. 22.27, 35.48, Ath. Pol. 57.2).‖1136

From what has been discussed so far it is apparent that issue can be taken with just about everything that MacDowell says here. However, MacDowell was cautious to separate homicide from what he refers to as ―legal cases concerned with religious offences‖. He does not say that the βαζηιεύο was in charge of homicide cases because they were to do with religion. A problem for the orthodox view of the βαζηιεύο is that in the ancestral context divinity and law were probably not conjunctive, at least we can so think if we refer to Homer. Where, for example, was the fear of Tēlemarchos that he would be polluted when he permitted the killer Theoklymenos to board his boat?1137 The idea of miasma seems to have been a later invention.1138

For present purposes the issue to be addressed is not whether the βαζηιεύο was part of a judicial hierarchy, but whether he had judicial power: the power sanctioned by the state to make a finding of guilt in connection with a claim of criminal wrongdoing, or liability in respect of a claim of a civil or administrative wrongdoing, combined with a power to impose a penalty, or to make an order for compensation.

It is clear that the juries of the citizen courts in Demosthenic Athens exercised judicial power, but we find that so also did the boulē (45.2, 46.2, 48.1, 48.2, 49.1), the Eleven (52), the apodektai (52.3), the Forty (53.1), the arbitrators (53.2), the Archōn (55.7), and the strategoi (61.2). The power ascribed to these other bodies by the Ath. Pol. is a full judicial power, albeit in many instances, but not always, with a right of a person so convicted to appeal to the citizen courts. The boulē, for example, according to the Ath. Pol., acted as a court in respect of, inter alia, (i) alleged misconduct by officials (45.2); (ii) misconduct in respect of buildings (presumably in regard to construction issues); (iii) misappropriation of monies (48.1 and 2); and (iv), failure of those with the care of a horse to exercise proper care (49.1). Depending on

1136 MacDowell (1999) 33-34. 1137 Homer, Odyssey, 15.271-281. See in general Gagarin (1986) especially 15 and 129. 1138 cf. Cantarella (1979) 202. 261

the nature of the case the boulē had the power to imprison, impose fines, and to withhold benefits or privileges.

The Ath. Pol. does not ascribe judicial power, as above defined, to the polemarch or the thesmothetai.1139

In the Ath. Pol. judicial power is everywhere and nowhere in particular. It is not even polycentric; it exists wherever at the time it happens to be exercised, but it is not permanently exercised in any one place. In Demosthenic Athens the law, like public ritual, was everybody‘s business to regulate, but no one can be identified in the Ath. Pol. as having overarching responsibility.

(i) Impiety

In 57.2 of the Ath. Pol. the βαζηιεύο is connected to actions for impiety (ἀζέβεηα). The critical verb in the Ath. Pol. is ιαγράλσ, the passive ιαγράλνληαη giving the sense that indictments for impiety fell to (were allocated to) the βαζηιεύο. It should be noted that although the Ath. Pol. uses the word ‗all‘ (π᾵ο) in relation to the torch races, to the ancestral sacrifices, to adjudications in respect of disputes between priests over religious matters, and to private actions for homicide, it does not use it for impiety indictments, notwithstanding that such indictments are referred to in the midst of these other matters. We may therefore be entitled to suspect that not all impiety matters fell to him.

In any event we cannot confidently go beyond the assertion that the βαζηιεύο received notice of indictments for impiety. We have no basis for assuming or presuming that the βαζηιεύο judged such matters, and that he was empowered to make a final and binding determination, and thus we cannot say that the βαζηιεύο had judicial powers in relation to such actions.1140 It

1139 The assertion by Leonhard Schmitz that the thesmothetai were judges who made law by precedent (as if anticipating the English system of common law) appears to be an unjustified elaboration of Ath. Pol. 3.4. 1140 We have it from Plato‘s Euthyphro that Socrates reported to the βαζηιεύο: on the indictment and trial see Munn (2000) 284-291. In the sources contemporaneous with the Demosthenic period there are a number of trials, or accusations concerning impiety or sacrilegious acts, but the βαζηιεύο is not stated to have played any administrative role in relation to them. See Demosthenes 59.116; 21.179-80; 22.2; 25.79-80; Demosthenes On the 2 Embassy, 281; IG II 1635 (374/3 BCE), lines 134-136; Diogenes Laertius 5.6 and 5.37. Note also that in Demosthenes Against Neaira, at 59.82, Theogenēs declares that it would be impiety on his part to breach his undertaking to the Areopagus Council, and at 59.81 it was the Areopagus Council which would have fined him (for impiety?). 262

can be noted though that according to Demosthenes it was ἀζέβεηα to destroy any of the κνξίαη, and anyone caught doing so would be brought before the Areopagus Council by the βαζηιεύο.1141

What constituted ἀζέβεηα in terms of its scope is unclear, but it appears to have been distinguishable as an offence from misbehaviour at a festival or theft of ‗sacred‘ property (money or other property from a temple or a sacred treasury). There is no sound basis in the extant record for it to be asserted that the βαζηιεύο had a broad jurisdiction in all such matters and yet it is clear that, for example, theft of temple property, the offence of ἱεξνζπιία, was regarded as being at least as serious as ἀζέβεηα.

Furthermore, it seems that it was to the thesmothetai not the βαζηιεύο to whom reference was made in relation to allegations of misconduct at festivals, misconduct which it seems the (or an) ekklēsia, not the βαζηιεύο, enquired into at first instance.1142

(ii) Disputes in Regard to Priesthoods

In respect to the express jurisdiction given to the βαζηιεύο in respect to priesthoods much the same can be said as in regard to the impiety jurisdiction. However, in order to properly assess the role of the βαζηιεύο it is necessary to consider what a priest was. Referring to Aristotle‘s conception of priests, and comparing it with Plato‘s, Feaver says: ―As in the Politicus the priest is but one step removed from an artisan.‖1143 They were not theologians but, as suggested in Chapter Three above,1144 technicians: knowledgeable about rules and procedures. The jurisdiction was not a ‗religious‘ jurisdiction, but one that concerned territorial disputes between craftsmen at best, and frequently merely watchmen in respect of land given over to gods.1145

1141 Demosthenes 22.27 and 35.48. 1142 See MacDowell (1978) 148-149 and Garland (1984) 78-80 and references. Note in particular Aeschines Against Ctesiphon at 3.52 and the related speech Demosthenes Against Meidias, 21.26. 1143 Feaver (1957) 149 referring to Aristotle Politics 1299a, 1319b and 1322b and Plato Statesman 290 C-E. Compare with Isocrates 2.6 referring to the historical record of anomalous behaviour by monarchs. 1144 pp. 124-125. 1145 See Feaver (1959) especially 144-147 and references in regard to disputes over priesthoods. See also Garland (1984). Lycurgus fragment 7 in Conomis, and fragments 31, 34, 35, 38 and 84 of Dinarchus purport to record disputes between genē but there is no reference to the βαζηιεύο. 263

In any event, the revised view on the nature of the genē, although it demotes the genos from an elevated status as at the crux of socio-political structure of at least dark-age Athens, still leaves it, not the annual βαζηιεύο, in the pre-eminent position in relation to priesthoods.1146

(iii) Homicide

The critical verb in the Ath. Pol. is again ιαγράλσ, and again the passive ιαγράλνληαη gives the sense that all private (hence, δίθε) actions for homicide fell to (were allocated to) the βαζηιεύο. However, the most we can say with reasonable confidence from this is that the βαζηιεύο received notice of such actions. Beyond that we must rely on speculation concerning what he did thereafter in relation to such matters. We certainly cannot say that the words accommodate MacDowell‘s claim, ―he had charge of all homicide cases‖.1147

He certainly did not ‗have charge of‘ all trials of homicide in the sense of having the conduct of all such trials. It is the case that the Ath. Pol. at 57.3-4 ascribes some trials of homicide by specific type to the βαζηιεύο, but it also ascribes homicide trials by specific type to the Areopagus, to the boulē, and to the Ephetai. The βαζηιεύο is connected in the Ath. Pol. (again by the verb ιαγράλσ) only with trials of homicide in respect of which the cause was not natural but there was no identifiable human or other perpetrator, or the death was known to be due to the action of a non-human agent.

There is no contemporaneous source concerning the actual role of the βαζηιεύο in connection with homicide other than the Ath. Pol. at 57.3-4. With respect to Demosthenic Athens there are non contemporaneous sources in connection with pre-trial procedures. Thus, Antiphon, 6.42, alleges that the βαζηιεὺο was obligated to facilitate three preliminary procedures of some sort (prodikasiai) over the following three months in respect of an indictment for murder, before having the case tried in the fourth month. What the preliminary procedures were is a mystery, albeit one in respect of which we can readily form general hypotheses; but that is all that they

1146 See for the revision Bourriot (1976) and Roussel (1976), and for some revision of the revision, Parker (1996) 55-66 and 284-327. 1147 MacDowell (1999) 33. See in general Garland (2000). 264

would be. We do not know in any detail what constituted the precise role of the βαζηιεύο, and it would be unwise in any event even to form general conclusions from this one source.1148

As to what law applied, we have what many scholars believe, on good grounds, to be a rendering of part at least of Drakōn‘s law (as in IG I3 104) in Demosthenes. However, the rendering does not illuminate the role of the βαζηιεύο.1149

In Demosthenes 47.69-70 the prosecutor divulges that exēgētēs counselled inter alia: πξὸο ηὸλ βαζηιέα κὴ ιαγράλεηλ. There is no warrant for modern terminology such as ‗lay a suit before‘ or ‗indict before‘. An appropriate rendering is ―do not bring the matter to the attention of the βαζηιεὺο‖ or ―do not inform the βαζηιεὺο‖.

When the relevant verbs used in the Ath. Pol. are examined, apart from ιαγράλσ, all we have is εἰζάγσ so that, for example, there is the assertion in the Ath. Pol. that the βαζηιεύο ‗brought in‘, ‗brought on‘, or ‗introduced‘, the case. These are not necessarily judicial functions. There is nothing in the Ath. Pol. or in any other contemporary source that enables us to say confidently that the βαζηιεύο exercised anything in the nature of actual judicial power.1150 We are told that at a trial the βαζηιεύο took off his crown, thus: θαὶ ὁ βαζηιεὺο ὅηαλ δηθάδῃ πεξηαηξεῖηαη ηὸλ ζηέθαλνλ.1151

Nor can it be said that the known role, such as it is, of the βαζηιεὺο in matters of impiety and homicide clearly sets the office of βαζηιεὺο apart as one for which there was a particular foundation in Athenian religious belief or practice.

F The Known Demosthenic βαζηιεῖο

Just as we had three Pre-Demosthenic annual βαζηιεῖο we have three Demosthenic βαζηιεῖο, two we know from epigraphy, the other from the orators.1152

1148 Antiphon, 6.42. 1149 Demosthenes 23.60. 1150 cf. MacDowell (1999) 38 after reviewing the sources: ―. . . nevertheless it is clear that these passages are not adequate evidence that the βαζηιεύο was a member of the jury and had a vote.‖ 1151 Ath. Pol. 57.4. 1152 IG II2 1230.3 refers to Euthydēmos as a paredros of a βαζηιεύο but it may be post-classical, and in any event we do not have a sure date: [ἐ]πεηδὴ Δὐζύδεκνο ὁ πάξεδξνο ηνῦ βαζ[η]ιέσο . . . 265

(a) Philōn of Chollēidai

An inscription dated to 370/369 is reasonably assumed to list the nine archons of that year with the first three lines referring to the archōn Dysnikētos of Phlya, Philōn of Chollēidai, and then Menandros. Thus: [ἐπὶ Γπ]λλ[ηθ]ήην ἄξρ[ν]ληνο, ἐλλέ‘ ἄξρνληε[ο ἔθελαλ θπ]- [ξώζα]ληε[ο ἐ]λ η῅η βνπι῅η ηνῖο πεληαθνζ[ίνηο· Γπλλί]- [θεην]ο [Φ]ι[π]εύο, Φίισλ Υνιιήηδεο, Μέλαλδξ[νο ․․․ . ․․․]1153

The existence of Dysnikētos is very well attested, so the dating is well founded;1154 however we do not know anything about Philōn, and it is merely an assumption from his being named second that it is he and not Menandros who is the βαζηιεύο.

(b) Exēkestidēs

The herm inscription referred to in Chapter Four is as follows (with restored text):

[἖]μεθεζηίδεο [Νηθνθξ]άηνπο Ἀινπεθ῅ζελ

[β]αζηιεύζαο ἀλ[έζεθελ]

πάξεδ[ξνη]

Νηθνθξάηεο ἖μεθεζ[ηίδνπ Ἀινπεθ῅ζελ]

Κιεαίλεηνο Μέλσ[λνο - -]

The date in this case is unknown, but it seems likely it is late 4th century BCE or even later.1155 The inscription looks to be confessing to nepotism: it would be a considerable coincidence if the ἖μεθεζηίδεο of whom the paredros Νηθνθξάηεο was a son was not the ἖μεθεζηίδεο who was βαζηιεὺο. Even if he was a son, we do not know enough to be sure nepotism was involved. Demosthenes in Against Meidias in matter of fact terms, that is to say, without any expressed indignation, identifies a paredros as ―son of an archon.‖1156

1153 SEG 19.133. 1154 Develin (1989) 250-251 with references. 1155 Shear (1971) 257; Develin (1989) 412; SEG 32.240. Develin notes that SEG 32.240 incorrectly dates the inscription at c. 400 BCE. 1156 Demosthenes, Against Meidias, 21.178. 266

Theogenēs, c. early 360s BCE, is of course the βαζηιεύο from Against Neaira. According to Apollodoros he was a not a man of the world:

εἰο ηνζνῦηνλ ὕβξεσο θαὶ ἀλαηδείαο ἦιζελ ΢ηέθαλνο νὑηνζὶ θαὶ Νέαηξα αὑηεί, ὥζηε ἐηόικεζαλ κὴ ἀγαπ᾵λ εἰ ἔθαζθνλ αὐηὴλ ἀζηὴλ εἶλαη, ἀιιὰ θαηηδόληεο Θενγέλελ Κνηξσλίδελ ιαρόληα βαζηιέα, ἄλζξσπνλ εὐγελ῅ κέλ, πέλεηα δὲ θαὶ ἄπεηξνλ πξαγκάησλ, ζπκπαξαγελόκελνο αὐηῶ δνθηκαδνκέλῳ θαὶ ζπλεππνξήζαο ἀλαισκάησλ, ὅηε εἰζῄεη εἰο ηὴλ ἀξρήλ, ΢ηέθαλνο νὑηνζί, θαὶ ὑπειζὼλ θαὶ ηὴλ ἀξρὴλ παξ‘ αὐηνῦ πξηάκελνο, πάξεδξνο γελόκελνο 1158

There may also be an inscriptional reference:

[Θε]νγέλ[εο ]

[἖ξ]ρηε[ύο] 1159

The unknown Κνηξσλίδελ was emended to the known deme Κνζσθίδελ by Voemel whose emendation has become widely adopted.1160 However, there is still a problem in that later in the text Theogenēs is said to be from the deme ἖ξρηεύο. The problem is not just the contradiction, it is also the spelling. There is a known deme ἖ξρηά, but not one called ἖ξρηεύο. The mistake, if that is what it is, is attributable to Blass.1161

The words ἄλζξσπνλ εὐγελ῅ have added significance because of the reference to Κνηξσλίδελ which is the name of a genos associated with a cult of Dionysos. By mentioning the Dionysian cult association of Theogenēs Apollodoros was arguably worsening the appearance of the behaviour of Stephanōs and Neaira.1162

Stephanōs is portrayed as having ingratiated himself (ὑπειζὼλ) to Theogenēs, putting Theogenēs under his power in exchange for money and thereby persuading Theogenēs to marry Neaira‘s daughter, Phanō. In consequence of Phanō‘s participation in the ‗marriage‘ to

1157 Develin (1989) 290. 1158 Demosthenes 59.72. 1159 IG II2 1903 dated to 378/377–322/321. 1160 Voemel (1859). 1161 Blass (1908). ἖ξρηεύο could of course be taken to be the adjectival form of the place name ἖ξρηά. 1162 cf. Kapparis (1999) 319 and references. 267

Dionysos, Theogenēs is said to have been hauled before the Areopagus Council to account for himself, presumably on some basis that he was to be suspected of having known of the alleged sordid background of Stephanōs, Neaira and Phanō and the fact that Phanō was not, as required, a virgin upon her marriage to Theogenēs. Whether any of this is true we cannot know. It suffices to point out again that as with Patroklēs (pages 166-167 above), here again is a βαζηιεύο being referred to in litigation in non-reverential terms, making him seem commonplace, this time as something of a fool, or worse perhaps, as a public official susceptible to bribery. Thus, the alacrity with which according to Apollodoros, Theogenēs jettisoned Phanō is hardly consistent with a marriage that was in the first place one of more than mere convenience leavened by financial inducement.1163

1163 Demosthenes (Apollodoros) 59.82 268

269

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONSPECTUS

CONTENTS

(a) The Origin of the Athenian βαζηιεύο 270

(b) The use and Abuse of the Athenian βαζηιεύο 272

270

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONSPECTUS

(a) The Origin of the Athenian βαζηιεύο

In the classical scholarship of the 19th century the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο was pressed into service to satisfy an anachronistic conception of ancient Athens, one that required Athens to have a ‗religious authority‘. For instance, in 1851 the view was expressed that the βαζηιεύο ―represented the king in his capacity of high priest of the nation and protected the state from the pollution which it might incur through the heedlessness or impiety of individuals.‖1164

This type of conception was not discouraged in later scholarship by the ‗myth and ritualist‘ thinking of the so-called ‗Cambridge School‘, inter alios, William Robertson Smith, Sir James Frazer, Jane Harrison, Samuel Hooke and Arthur Hocart. Nor was it discouraged by Indo- European modelling of Ancient Greek society, in particular the tri-functional model of Dumézil, or by the French structuralism that Dumézil and the likes of Claude Lévi-Strauss inspired: hence the work of scholars such as Jean-Pierre Vernant, Marcel Detienne, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Nicole Loraux.

It was a century ago when Rhode wrote, arguing that the settlement of blood feuds was a ‗religious‘ function of the Athenian state:

―[E]bendarum ist der Gerichtsvorsteher aller Blutgerichte der Archon König, der staatliche Verwalter der aus dem alten Königthum herübergekommenen religiösen Obliegenheiten.‖1165

And in the mid-20th century the hyperbole, if it was not sheer fantasy, had not waned. The annual βαζηιεύο was ―in charge of the religious and priestly functions of the state‖ as the legatee of ―the priestly prerogatives of the early kings‖.1166 He was responsible for ―all

1164 Schmitz (1851) 155. cf. Smith (1888) 29-30 wherein the βαζηιεύο is described in identical terms, and Hammond (1895) 58 also fixing the βαζηιεύο as the archon ―who performed the religious rites.‖ 1165 Rohde (1908) Vol. 1, 267-268. 1166 Mylonas (1961) 317. The state as priest seems an odd notion in itself. 271

traditional sacrifices‖ including the Anthesteria ―in which his wife also has a spectacular role to play.‖1167

To these instances Carlier can be added:

―L'union charnelle du roi et de la reine vise peut-être aussi à assurer par magie sympathique la fécondité des terres, des animaux et des femmes de la cité ou à lever, pour tous les citoyens, le maléfice lié à l'acte sexuel. Le βασιλεύρ athénien et son épouse exercent encore, lors des Anthestéries, quelques-uns des pouvoirs magiques des souverains athéniens primitifs.‖1168

Such a conception has provided an explanation for the office of Athenian βαζηιεύο, and it continues to do so.1169 For example, Kearns, defining the Athenian βαζηιεύο:

―annual Athenian official whose name suggests that he fulfilled some of the roles of the king of much earlier times; his duties were mainly of a religious nature.‖

Thus, modern classical scholarship has invested heavily in the notion that there had been in Athens a theocratic monarchy, or at least a monarchy to which a role of supervising ritual and conducting sacrifices was indispensable.

There is no persuasive evidence of such a monarchy at any time in Athens, either in Mycenaean Athens (if there was a ‗Mycenaean‘ Athens) or subsequently. The case for such a monarchy is unsupported by clear evidence, and as a source for the Athenian βαζηιεύο it is inherently implausible in any event: the attempted separation of the ‗sacral‘ and ‗civil‘ functions of a theocratic monarch involves a repudiation of its ideological foundations, the vestigial king becomes the custodian of a repudiated belief system; and if the monarchy is not theocratic, there is no necessity for the vestigial king to be an exclusively ‗sacral‘ official, or for other officials not to have responsibility in relation to ‗sacral‘ matters.

The irony in Parker‘s description in 1996 of the annual βαζηιεύο as Athens‘ ―pre-eminent religious authority‖, and in 2007 as the individual in Athens ―who had the highest

1167 Burkert (1985) 95, and see 50 with notes 39-40. 1168 Carlier (1984) 335. 1169 Kearns (2010) 171. 272

responsibility in religious affairs‖, is that Parker had come to the conclusion that in Athens there was a ―functional equipollence‖ of magistrate with priest.1170 The nine archons and the members of the boulē wore a crown, and so did priests.1171 Parker describes this as indicating ―a religious grounding of secular office‖.1172 Yet this places the βαζηιεύο not at the religious end of a bipolarity of divinity and sovereignty, but within a conflation of divinity and sovereignty. In any event, a close examination of the extant sources does not disclose anyone in Athens who had ―the highest responsibility in religious affairs‖, whatever the phrase should be taken to mean.

There is no satisfactory account of the origin of the Athenian βαζηιεύο for which a thorough factual foundation can be cited, and the origin must remain for the present a subject of speculation. However, the speculation should allow

(i) that the word ‗βαζηιεύο‘, having regard to what we know of its origins and usages, is not a sound guide to how we might conceive of the Athenian office for which βαζηιεύο is an eponym;

(ii) that the Athenian βαζηιεύο cannot be shown to have had an exclusive, or even a superior role in respect of Athenian ritual and festival practices; and,

(iii) the possibility that the office was not instituted in any form recognizable in the conception of the Ath. Pol. before the end of the 6th century BCE, and perhaps not before the middle of the 5th.

(b) The Use and Abuse of the Athenian βαζηιεύο

Consider the assertion that by reason of the fact that ―the Archon Basileus was in charge of all torch races (Constitution of Athens 57.1)‖ this implied ―both the antiquity and the sacral nature of the event.‖1173 Here there are two unstated assumptions: first, that the βαζηιεύο had some special connection with the sacred dimension of the state; an ancient connection that relevantly related to torch races, and second, that a torch race was a religious or sacred event because the

1170 Parker (2007) 97 with references. 1171 See Parker (2007) 97-99. 1172 Parker (2007) 98. 1173 Kyle (1996) 96. 273

βαζηιεύο had responsibility for it. Furthermore, it plainly does not follow necessarily that the nature of an office will confer the same nature on whatever is organized by the office holder.1174 Similarly, it does not follow necessarily that the organizers of an event with religious (or sacral) significance have responsibility for religious (or sacral) matters.1175

For the purpose of dating festivals, Simon placed the βαζηιεύο in the middle of a tripartite time frame, the Neolithic, the Bronze Age and the post-Bronze Age. She described the annual βαζηιεύο as the ―successor of Theseus‖1176 and taking the only piece of evidence that connects the βαζηιεύο with the Anthestēria, the scholion on Acharnians to the effect that the βαζηιεύο conferred the prize at the drinking contest, she combined it with the conception of the βαζηιεύο as connected with an ancient Athenian religious legacy, to declare that the roots of the Anthestēria must go back to the Bronze Age. So we do not expect to see the βαζηιεύο associated with the Dipolieia, Braurōnia, or Thesmophoria, because they were, she claims, pre- Bronze Age, but we do expect to see him associated with Eleusinian Mysteries, the Arrēphoria, the older Panathēnaia, the Lēnaia and the Anthestēria because these were ―[t]ypical Bronze Age festivals‖, and ―[i]n all of these the archon basileus played an important role as the successor to the Bronze Age kings, whereas he did not take part in the ‗Neolithic‘ festivals considered above.‖1177

Pickard-Cambridge used the same type of reasoning to argue that the City Dionysia was not old: ―that it was a relatively late institution is indicated by the fact that it was not controlled by the archon basileus, the successor of the kings as the supreme religious official of Athens, but by the archon eponymous.‖1178

Recall also the statement of Langdon above1179 who insisted in effect that only the βαζηιεύο could have had a role in leases of state-owned sacred land because it was he who was ―the

1174 An egg and spoon race at a church picnic does not have a sacral nature simply because organized by the parish priest. The torch race (ιακπαδεδξνκία) is attested for a number of Athenian festivals: see Deubner (1956) 211- 212. 1175 The organizers of a Christmas pageant do not have sacred responsibilities simply because of their being responsible for an event associated with a religious observance. See in general Parker (2007) 136-137. 1176 Simon (1983) 97. 1177 Simon (1983) 106. See p. 117 note 518 above for Scholion on Acharnians 1224-5. 1178 Pickard-Cambridge (1988) 58 (and note 2). 1179 p. 245. 274

official who oversees the religious affairs of Athens‖. And also Lalonde,1180 who argued that the βαζηιεύο oversaw the placement of horοi in the Pelargikon because he was ―the chief religious magistrate.‖

Unstated assumptions underpin an assertion by Shear:

―The Royal Stoa served as the official seat of the βαζηιεύο from its construction throughout the history of public life in Athens . . .‖1181 and an assertion by Thompson and Wycherley:

―and it is illuminating to discover that one of the principal magistrates of the city should have been content with such modest physical accommodation.‖1182

The images conjured by the notion of an ―official seat‖, and by the suggestion of aura surrounding the office of βαζηιεύο that would call for the expectation that the incumbent would require something better than ―modest physical accommodation‖, seem incommensurate with the best that can be made of the office having regard to the extant record.

In a similar vein of sentiment is Hölscher‘s deduction that the re-location of the Athenian βαζηιεύο to the Royal Stoa from the Boukolion would have been a disturbance of tradition because of the status of the office1183 and would thus have required ―great conscious planning‖. And Shear refers to the ―modicum of privacy‖ that ―was always welcome‖ as the βαζηιεύο went about his ―confidential‖ business in the Royal Stoa.

Very recently, for the purposes of helping to clinch an argument regarding the publication of leases in or near the Royal Stoa, it has been asserted: ―[a]fter all, the Royal Stoa, as the seat of the basileus, was laden with religious connotations . . .‖1184 The extant evidence about the Royal Stoa and about the βαζηιεύο does not provide adequate support for such an argument.

Nor does the extant evidence about the βαζηιεύο entitle us to regard the incumbent of the office as saintly:

1180 p. 246. 1181 Shear (1971) 239. 1182 Thompson and Wycherley (1972) 90. 1183 Hölscher (1991) 364. 1184 Papazarkadas (2011) 72. 275

―the chief cult officer of the state, who was in origin a religious official, being heir of the religious position of the king, and to whose person, almost certainly, 1185 some sanctity attached.‖

After reviewing the extant record for the office of annual βαζηιεύο we are left with more questions than answers.

Yet in the early 21st century the language, and the fantasy, remains largely unchanged save that ―the early kings‖ are now likely to be called ‗paramount βαζηι῅εο‘: the annual βαζηιεύο having been substituted for a ―paramount basileus‖ at the behest of the ―chiefs of Attica.‖ 1186 ‗When‘, ‗why‘ and ‗how‘ are questions essentially by-passed. But the annual βαζηιεύο is still held to have ―administered the cults of the polis.‖ (Emphasis added).1187

Consider the very recent description of the Royal Stoa, in a work purporting to be serious scholarship, as the ―home of the city‘s religious court‖.1188 The trial of Socrates commences there with the βαζηιεύο, ―his hair long and wreathed in myrtle, his tunic unbelted‖, cutting the throat of some hapless sacrificial animals over the ‗oath‘ stone. Perhaps the block ―gleamed wet with blood and gore‖, or at least with the blood that was not captured in a ―sacred bowl‖. Then the βαζηιεύο, having plunged his hands into the bowl, ―[w]rist-deep in blood he was ready to oversee justice.‖1189

There is enough in the ancient record to indicate that the office of annual βαζηιεύο was not inconsequential. But if we take a more sober view than that expressed in the traditional accounts all that we can say with any confidence is that the office of βαζηιεύο had a role in the ritual and legal affairs of classical Athens. We cannot assert with any reasonable confidence precisely what the role of the βαζηιεύο was, or how important it was absolutely, or how important in any specific or relative sense.

1185 Garland (1984) 80. 1186 See p. 96 above and Pomeroy et al. (2009) 126. 1187 Pomeroy et al. (2009) 126. 1188 Hughes (2011) 27. 1189 Hughes (2011) 36-37. 276

It is may be useful to recall the ―phantom‖ contemplated by King Charles 1st: ―If I granted your demands, I should be no more than the mere phantom of a king.‖1190 Yet, whilst the annual Athenian βαζηιεύο was not a king in any sense at all, he was not a phantom either. And although we cannot locate the office in a constitutional or socio-religious context meaningful in modern terms, and although we have no provable idea of how or when the office was established, there is no more warrant for deploying the βαζηιεύο as a trope, than there is a warrant for the romanticism, sentiment, and hyperbole, that have been all too evident in many modern references to the office.

1190 Charles 1st according to Green (1896) 1140. 277

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MODERN WORKS CITED

Ackermann, Hans Christian and Gisler, Jean-Robert (Eds) (1981-1997): Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8 Volumes, Zürich: Artemis. Acocella, Alfonso (2006): Stone Architecture, translated by Alice Fisher and John Barr, Lucense: Skira. Adams, Charles Darwin (1919): Aeschines with an English translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Adcock, F.E. ‗Athens Under the Tyrants‘ (1926): Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 4. Adrimi-Sismani, Vassiliki ―Mycenaean Northern Borders Revisited, New Evidence from Thessaly‖ in Galaty and Parkinson (Eds) (2007) Chapter 15, 159-177. Alcock, John (2001): The Triumph of Sociobiology, New York: OUP. Alföldy, G. ‗Der attische Synoikismos und die Entstehung des athenischen Adels‘ (1969): Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 47, 5-37. Andersen, Øivind ‗Peisistratean Recension‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 668-670. Anderson Carl A. ‗Athena‘s Big Finger: An Unnoticed Sexual Joke in Aristophanes‘ Knights‘ (2008): Classical Philology, Vol. 103, No. 2, 175-181. Anderson, Carl and Keith, T. ‗Prometheus and the Basileia in Aristophanes' Birds‘ (2007): The Classical Journal, Vol. 102, No. 4, 321-327. Anderson, Greg (2003): The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Community in Ancient Attica, 508-490 BC, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Anderson, Greg ‗Alkmeonid Homelands, Political Exile, and Unification of Attica‘ (2000): Historia, 49: 387-412. Andreev, Juri V. ‗Könige und Königsherrshaft in den Epen Homers‘ (1979): Klio 61, 361-384. Andrews, A. ‗The Growth of the Athenian State‘ (1982): Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, 2nd Edition, 360-391. Andrikou, E., Aravantinos, V.L., Godart, L., Sacconi, A., Vroom J. (2006): Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée, II.2. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou: le contexte archéologique. La céramique de la Odos Pelopidou et la chronologie du linéaire B. Pisa-Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali. 278

Aravantinos, V. ‗The Mycenaean inscribed Sealings from Thebes: preliminary notes‘ (1987): Tractata Mycenaea, 13-27. Aravantinos, V. ‗The Mycenaean inscribed Sealings from Thebes: Problems of Context and Function‘ (1990): Aegaeum 5, 149-174. Archibald, Zosia, Halina ‗Northern Greece‘ in Raaflaub and Wees (2009) 294-313. Arendt, Hannah (1970): On Violence, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Armour, E.T. ‗Thinking Otherwise: Derrida‘s Contribution to the Philosophy of Religion‘ in Joy Morny (Ed) (2011): Continental Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion, Calgary: Springer, 39-60. Aura Jorro, F. (1993): Diccionario Micénico, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Avagianou, Aphrodite (1991): Sacred Marriage in the Rituals of Greek Religion, Bern: Peter Lang. Badian, E. ‗Archons and Strategoi‘ (1971): Antichthon 5, 1-34. Barber, R.L.N. (1987): The Cyclades in the Bronze Age, London: Duckworth. Barceló, Pedro ‗Basileia, Monarchia, Tyrannis, Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung und Beurteilung von Alleinherrschaft im vorhellenistischen Griechenland‘ (1993). Historia Einzelschriften 79, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Baustein, Alb. Herm. (1881): für eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft auf vergleichend- ethnologischer Basis, 2 Volumes, Oldenburg: C. Berndt & A. Schwartz. Becker, Howard ‗In Defence of Morgan‘s ―Grecian Gens‖: Ancient Kingship and Stratification‘ (1950): South-western Journal of Anthropology 6, 309-339. Behrend, Diederich (1970): Attische Pachturkunden, Ein Beitr. z. Beschreibung der misthosis nach d. griech. Inschriften, München: Beck Bekker, Emmanuel (1814-1821): Anecdota Graeca, 3 Volumes, Volume 1, Berolini: G. C. Nauckium. Bendix, Ronald (1978): Kings or people: power and the mandate to rule, Berkeley: UCP. Bengtson, Herman (1950): Griechische Geschichte: von den Anfängen bis in die römische Kaiserzeit, München: C.H. Beck'sche. 279

Bennett, Emmett, L. ‗The Olive Oil Tablets of Pylos: Texts of inscriptions found‘ (1955) Suplementos a ‗Minos‘, 2, Salamanca: Universidad, Seminario de Filologia Classica. Bennett, Emmett L. Jr and Olivier, Jean-Pierre (1973): The Pylos Tablets Transcribed, Part 1: Texts and Notes, Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. Bennett, Emmett L. Jr and Olivier, Jean-Pierre (1976): The Pylos Tablets Transcribed, Part II: Hands, Concordances, Indices, Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. Benveniste, É. (1969): Le vocabulaire des instituions indoeuropéennes, Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Benveniste, É. (1973): Indo-European language and society, translated by Elizabeth Palmer, London: Faber and Faber. Berent, M. ‗Anthropology and the Classics: War, Violence and the Stateless Society‘ (2000): Classical Quarterly 50, 257-289. Bernal, Martin (2006): Black Athena, Volume III, New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press. Bertelli, Sergio (1995): The King‘s Body, Trans. R. Burr Litchfield, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Bieber, Margaret, ‗Review‘ (1966): American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 70, 382-386. Birdsell, Joseph B. ‗Some Population Problems Involving Pleistocene Man‘ in Demerec, M. (Ed.) (1957): Population Studies: Animal Ecology and Demography, Vol. 22, Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology, 47-69. Bittlestone, Robert (2005): Odysseus Unbound, The Search for Homer‘s Ithaca, Cambridge: CUP. Blass, F. (1893): Die attische Beredsamkeit, 2nd edition, Leipzig: Teubner. Blass, F. (Ed) (1908): Demosthenis Orationes, Volume 3, Leipzig: Teubner. Blegen C.W. (1963): Troy and the Trojans, London: Thames and Hudson. Blegen, Carl, W. and Rawson, Marion (2004): Guide to the Palace of Nestor, Princeton NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Bloch, H. ‗The Exegetes of Athens and Prytaneion Decree‘ (1953): The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 74, 407-18. 280

Bloch, Herbert ‗Herakleides Lembos and his Epitome of Aristotle‘s Politeiai‘ (1940a): Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Volume 71, 27- 39. Bloch, Herbert ‗Studies in the Historical Literature of the Fourth Century B.C.‘ (1940b): Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Supplement Vol. 1, 352-353. Bloch, Herbert ‗The Exegetes of Athens and the Prytaneion Decree‘ (1953): American Journal of Philology, Volume 47, 407-418. Bloch, Herbert ‗The Exegetes of Athens: a Reply‘ (1957): American Journal of Philology, Volume 62, 37-49. Bloch, Maurice (Ed.), (1975): Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology, New York: Tavistock. Blok, Josine H. ‗Phye‘s Procession: Culture, Politics and Peisistratid Rule‘ in Sancisi- Weerdenberg (2000), 17-48. Boegehold, Alan L. (1995): The Lawcourts at Athens: sites, buildings, equipment, procedure, and testimonia, The Athenian Agora Volume 28, Princeton, N.J: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Boer, W. Den ‗Aspects of Religion in Classical Greece‖ (1973): Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Volume 77, 1-21. Boersma, Joh. S. (1970): Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Boersma, Josine, H. Blok, ‗Peisistratos‘ Building Activity Reconsidered‘ in Sancisi- Weerdenburg (2000) 49-56. Bonner, Robert J, and Smith, Gertrude (2000): The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle, Two Volumes, first published 1930/8, Clark NJ: The Lawbook Exchange Ltd. Boserup, E. (1965): The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure, London: Allen & Unwin. Bourriot, F. ‗Recherches sur la nature de génos‘ (1976): Étude d‘histoire sociale athénienne, périodes archaïque et classique, Paris: Honoré Champion. Bowra C.M. ‗Homeric Words in Cyprus‘ (1934): Journal of Hellenic Studies 54, 54-74. 281

Boyer, Pascal (2001): Religion Explained. The human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors, London: William Heinemann. Bradeen, Donald W. ‗The fifth-Century Archon List‘ (1963): Hesperia, Volume 32, No. 2, 187- Broneer, O. ‗A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis‘ (1939): Hesperia 8, 317-433. Bronowski, J. (1978): Magic, Science, and Civilization, New York: Columbia University Press. Brownson, Carleton L. (1918): Xenophon in Seven Volumes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burkert, Walter ‗Das hunderttorige Theben und die Datierung der Ilias‘ (1976): Wiener Studien, Vol. 89, 5-21. Burkert, Walter (1983a): Homo Necans, translated by Peter Bing, Berkeley: University of California Press. Burkert, W. (1983b) in Hägg (1983). Burkert, Walter (1985): Greek Religion, trans. John Raffan, Oxford. Burkert, Walter (1996): Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Burr, D. ‗A Geometric House and Proto-Attic Deposit‘ (1933): Hesperia 2, Princeton, 542-640. Bury R.G. (1967-1968): Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 10 and 11, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Busolt, G. and Swoboda, H. (1920-1926): Griechische Staatskunde, München: C.H. Beck'sche Verlag. Cadoux, T.J. ‗The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides‘ (1948): Journal of Hellenic Studies, Volume 68. Calhoun, G.M. ‗Classes and Masses in Homer‘ (1934): Classical Philology 29, 192-208 and 301-316. Camp, J.M. (1977): The Water Supply of Athens from 3000 to 86 B. C., Princeton. Camp, John McK. II ‗A drought in the late eighth century B.C.‘ (1979): Hesperia 48, 397-411. Camp, J. McK. II "Water and the Pelargikon" (1984): Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs, 10, Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday, 37-41. Camp, J.M. (1992/1986): The Athenian Agora, London: Thames and Hudson. 282

Camp, John McK. II ‗Before Democracy: the ―Alkmaionidai and Peisistradai‘ in Coulson, W.D.E., Palagia, O., Shear, T.L. Jr, Shapiro, H.A., and Frost, F.J. (Eds) (1992): The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, Oxford: Oxbow, 7- 12. Camp, John McK, ‗Walls and the Polis‘ in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen and Rubinstein (2000) 41- 57. Camp, John, M. (2001): The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven: Yale University Press. Camp, J. McK. ‗Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1993-2001‘ (2003): Hesperia, 241-280. Campbell, Jeremy (2001): The Liar‘s Tale: A History of Falsehood, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. Caneiro, R.L. ‗On the relationship between size of population and complexity of social organization‘, (1967): South Western Journal of Anthropology 23, 234-243. Carneiro, R. ‗The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State‘ in Jones, G. and Kautz, R. (Eds) (1981): The Transition to Statehood in the New World, Cambridge: CUP, 39-79. Canevaro, Mirko ‗The Decree Awarding Citizenship to the Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104)‘ (2010): Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50, 337-369. Cantarella, Eva ‗Norma e sanzione in Omero: contributo alla protostoria del diritto greco‘ (1979): Università degli Studi di Milano, Pubblicazioni dell' Istituto di Diritto Romano, 13, vi + 329. Carlier, P. (1984): La Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasbourg: Association pour l'étude de la Civilisation Romaine. Carlier, P.‗ ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο in the Homeric Poems‘ in Deger-Jalkotzy and Lemos (2006) 101-109. Cartledge, P. (2001): Spartan Reflections, 153-166, London: Duckworth. Cartledge, Paul (2002): Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300-362, Oxford. Cartledge, Paul ‗Basileus. The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece by Robert Drews‘ (1983): History Today, 49-51. Caskey, John, L. ‗Excavations in Keos‘ (1963): Hesperia, Vol. 33, No. 3, 314-335. Castleden, Rodney (2005): Mycenaeans, London and New York: Routledge. Cavanagh, W.G. ‗Surveys, Cities and Synoecism‘ in Rich J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (Eds) (1991): City and Country in the Ancient World, London and New York: Routledge, 97- 118. 283

Cavanaugh, Maureen B. (1996): Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B. C., Atlanta GA: Scholars Press. Cawkwell, G.L. ‗Early Greek Tyranny and the People‘ (1995): Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 45, No. 1, 73-86. Chadwick, J. ‗Potnia‘ (1957): Minos 5, 117-129. Chadwick J. ‗Linear B tablets from Thebes‘ (1969): Minos 10, 115-137. Chadwick, John (1967): The Decipherment of Linear B, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: CUP. Chaniotis, Angelos, Corsten Thomas, Stroud, Ronald S. and Strubbe, Johan H. M. (Eds) (1923- 2011): Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden: Brill. Chantraine, P. (1968-1980): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, 4 Volumes, Paris: Klincksieck. Cherry J. ‗Evolution, Revolution, and the Origins of Complex Society in Minoan Crete‘ in Krzyszkowska, O. and Nixon, L. (Eds) (1983): Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981, 33-46. Clark, William R. and Grunstein, Michael (2000): Are We Hardwired?, New York. OUP. Clarke, David L. (1968): Analytical Archaeology, London: Methuen & Co. Cline, Eric H. (Ed.) (2010): The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, New York: OUP. Clinton, Kevin ‗The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries‘ (1974): Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 64.3, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Clinton, Kevin ‗A Law in the City Eleusinion Concerning the Mysteries‘(1980): Hesperia, Volume 49, 258-288. Clinton, Kevin (2005): Eleusis, the inscriptions on stone, 2 Volumes, Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens. Coady, C.A.J. (1992): Testimony, A Philosophical Study, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cohen, Edward E. ‗Commercial Law‘ in Gagarin, Michael and Cohen, David (2005): The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, Cambridge: CUP, 290-302. Connor, W.R., Hansen, M.H., Raaflaub, K.A. Strauss, B.S. (1990): Aspects of Athenian Democracy, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Cook, Arthur Bernard (1925): Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, 3 Volumes, Cambridge: CUP. 284

D‘Onofrio, A.M. ‗The 7th Century B.C. in Attica: the Basis of Political Organization‘ (1997): Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the 9th to the 6th Centuries B.C., Acta Hyperborea 7, 63-88. Daraki, Maria (1985): Dionysos, Paris : Arthaud. Darcque, P. ‘Les vestiges mycéniens découverts sous le Télestérion d'E1eusis‘ (1981): Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 105, 593-605. Dareste, R., Haussoullier, B. and Reinach Th. (1898): Recueil des inscriptions juridiques grecques II, Paris: E. Leroux. Davies, J.K. (1971): Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C.E, Oxford: OUP. Davies, J.K. (1993): Democracy and Classical Greece, 2nd Edition, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Dawson, Stuart ‗The Athenian Wappenmünzen‘ (1999): Scholia ns, Vol. 8, 71-78 De Fidio, Pia ‗Mycenaean History‘ in Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies (Eds) (2008) Chapter 4, 82-114. De Martino, F. (1972). Storia della costituzione romana, 6 volumes, 2nd edition, Napoli: Eugenio Jovene. De Miro, W. Godart, L. and Sacconi A. (Eds) (1996): Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di Micenologia, 14-20 ottobre 1991, Volume 3, Archeologia, Incunabula Graeca 98, Roma-Napoli: Gruppo. Editoriale Interazionale. De Polignac, François (1995): Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City State, translated by Janet Lloyd, first published 1984, Chicago: Universality of Chicago Press. De Sanctis, Gaetano (1898): ΑΤΘΙΣ: Storia della repubblica ateniese, Roma: Della S.C. De Propaganda Fide. De Sanctis, Gaetano (1956 -1969): Storia dei Romani, 4 Volumes, 2nd edition, Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Deger, S. (1970): Herrschaftsformen bei Homer, Doctoral Dissertation,Wien. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. ‗On the Negative Aspects of the Mycenaean Palace System‘ in De Miro, Godart, and Sacconi (1996) 715-728. Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Lemos, Irene S. (2006): Ancient Greece, from the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 285

Demargne and Cassimatis (1984) in Ackermann and Gisler (1981-1997). Derrida, Jacques ‗Faith and Knowledge: the Two Sources of ‗Religion‘ at the limits of Reason Alone‘ in Derrida, Jacques and Vattimo, Gianni (Eds) (1996) Religion, Stanford CA: Sandford University Press. Deubner, Ludwig (1956): Attische Feste, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Develin, Robert ‗The election of Archons from Solon to Telesinos‘ (1979): L'Antiquité Classique, 48, 455-468. Develin, Robert ‗Age Qualifications for Athenian Magistrates‘ (1985): Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 61, 149-159. Develin, Robert (1989): Athenian Officials, 684-321, Cambridge: CUP. Diakonoff, I.M. and Neroznak, V.P. (1985): Phrygian, Delmar NY: Caravan Books. Diamant, Steven ‗Theseus and the Unification of Athens‘ (1982): Hesperia Supplement 19, Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 38-50. Dickinson, O. (1977): The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization, Göteborg: Paul Åströms. Diehl, Ernestus (1949): Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, Lipsiae: Teubneri. Diels, Hermann and Kranz, Walter (1985): Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Zürich: Weidmann. Dillon, Matthew P. J. ‗Was Kleisthenes or Pleisthenes Archon at Athens in 525 BC?‘ (2006): Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 155, 91-107. Donlan, Walter ‗The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece by Robert Drews‘ (1984): The Classical World, Vol. 77, No. 3, 201-202. Donlan, W. ‗The Social Groups of Dark Age Greece‘ (1985): Classical Philology 80, 293-308. Douglas, David Charles (1999): William the Conqueror; the Norman impact upon England, London: Yale University Press. Duhoux, Yves and Morpurgo Davies, Anna (Eds) (2008): A Companion to Linear B Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World, Volume 1, Dudley, MA: Peeters. Dow, Sterling ‗Greek Inscriptions‘ (1941): Hesperia, Vol. 10, 31-37. Dow, Sterling ‗The Law codes of Athens‘ (1953-1957): Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, Volume 71, 2-36. 286

Dow, Sterling ‗The Athenian calendar of sacrifices: the chronology of Nicomachos‘ second term‘ (1960): Historia 9, 270-293. Drews, Robert (1983): Basileus: The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Drews, R. (1988): The Coming of the Greeks, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Drews, Robert (1993): The End of the Bronze Age, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Dumézil, Georges (1958): L‘idéologie tripartite des Indo-Européens, Bruxelles: Latomus. Dumond, Don, E. ‗Population growth and culture change‘ (1972): Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21, 302-324. Dvornik, F. (1966): Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background, Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Centre for Byzantine Studies. Earle, T. and Ericson J. (Eds) (1977): Exchange Systems in Prehistory, New York: Academic Press. Earle, T. ‗Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective‘ (1987): Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 279-308. Earle, T. (Ed.) (1991): Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, Cambridge: CUP. Edmonds, John Maxwell (Ed.) (1957-1961): The Fragments of Attic Comedy, 4 Volumes, Leiden: Brill. Edmonds, Radcliffe G. III ‗Underworld, Topography of‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 909-910. Edmondson, Colin N. ‗Onesippos‘ Herm‘ (1981): Hesperia Supplement 19, Princeton NJ: American school of Classical Studies in Athens, 48-50. Edmunds, Lowell ‗Commentary on Raaflaub‘ in Robinson (2004) 41- 44. Ehrenberg, Victor (1968): From Solon to Socrates, 2nd ed., London and New York: Routledge. Elman, R. (1979): The Hunters, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Evans, Nancy, A. ‗Sanctuaries, Sacrifices and the Eleusinian Mysteries‘ (2002): Numen, Vol. 49, No. 3, 227-254. Evans, Nancy (2010): Civic Rites: Democracy and Religion in Ancient Athens, Berkeley: University of California Press. Fanta, A. (1882): Der Staat in der Ilias und Odyssee, Innsbruch: Wagner'sche Universitäts- Buchhandlung. 287

Farron, S.G. ‗The Odyssey as an Anti-Democratic Statement‘ (1979-1980): Studies in Antiquity, 59-101. Feaver, Douglas, D. ‗Historical Development in the Priesthoods of Athens‘ (1957): Yale Classical Studies, 15, 123-158. Fehling, Detlev (1989): Herodotus and His Sources, translated from the 1971 German edition of J. G. Howie, Leeds: Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd. Figueira, Thomas J. ‗The Ten Archontes of 579/8 at Athens‘ (1984): Hesperia 53, 447-473. Finkelberg, Margalit (Ed.) (2011): The Homer Encyclopedia, 3 Volumes, Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Finkelberg, Margalit ‗Athenians Ἀζελαῖνη‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 112. Finley, M.I. ‗Homer and Mycenae: property and tenure‘ (1957): Historia 6, 132-159. Finley, M. (1973): Democracy Ancient and Modern, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Finley, M.I. (1975): The Use and Abuse of History, London: Chatto & Windus. Finley, M.I. (1981): Economy and Society in Ancient Athens, London: Chatto & Windus. Finley, M.I. (1982a): Authority and Legitimacy in the Classical City-State, Kommissionær: Munksgaard, København. Finley, Moses ‗Problems of slave society: some reflections on the debate‘ (1982b): Opus 1, 201-211. Finley, M. (1983a): Politics in the Ancient World, Cambridge: CUP. Finley, Moses (1983b): Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, London: Penguin. Finley, M.I. (2002): The World of Odysseus, (first published 1954), London: The Folio Society. Fisher, N.R.E. ‗Drews (R.) Basileus: the evidence for kingship in Geometric Greece.‘ (1986): Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 107, 236-237 (review). Flensted-Jensen, Pernille, Nielsen, Thomas Heine, Rubinstein, Lene, (Eds) (2000): Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History, Copenhagen. Fletcher, Roland (1995): The Limits of Settlement Growth, A theoretical Outline, Cambridge. Fornara, C.W. (1983): Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, Volume 1: Archaic times to the End of the Peloponnesian War, 2nd Edition, Cambridge. 288

Forrest, W.G. and Stockton D.L. ‗The Athenian Archons: A Note‘ (1987): Historia 36, 335- 240. Fowler, Harold North, (1966): Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, Foxhall, L. and Lewis, A.D.E. (1996): Greek Law in its Political Setting: Justifications not Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Foxhall, Lin ‗Gender‘ in Raaflaub and Wees (2009) 483-507. Foxhall, Lynette, G. ‗A View from the Top‘ in Mitchell and Rhodes (1997) 113-136. Frank, Jill and Monoson, S. Sara ‗Lived Excellence in Aristotle‘s Constitution of Athens‘ in Salkever (2009) 243-270. Frankfort, Henri (1978/1948): Kingship and the Gods, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Frazer, Sir James George (1905): Lectures on the Early History of Kingship, London: Macmillan & Co. Frazer, Sir James George (1922): The Golden Bough, London: Macmillan & Co. Freeman, George C. ‗The Misguided Search for a Constitutional Definition of Religion‘ (1982): The Georgetown Law Journal, Volume 71, 1519-1565. Fried, M. (1967): The Political Evolution of Society, An Essay in Political Anthropology, New York: Random House. Fried, M.H. (1975): The Notion of Tribe, Cummings, Menlow Park: Cummings Publishing Company. Friedman, J. and Rowlands, M. (Eds) (1978): The Evolution of Social Systems, London: Duckworth. Friedman, Jonathan ‗Tribes, States, and Transformations‘ in Bloch (1975) 161-202. Frisk, H. (1960-1972): Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Fritz, Kurt von and Kapp, Ernst (1974/1950): Aristotle‘s Constitution of Athens and Related Texts, London and New York. Frost, Frank, J. ‗The Athenian Military before Cleisthenes‘ (1984): Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 33, No. 3, 283-294. 289

Frost, F.J. ‗Aspects of Early Athenian Citizenship‘ in Boegehold, A. L. and, Scafuro, C. A. (Eds) (1994): Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 46-56. Furley, W.D. ‗A Note on [Lysias] 6, against Andokides‘ (1989): The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 39, 550-553. Fustel de Coulanges in Daremberg & Saglio (1873-1919): Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie. Fustel de Coulanges Numa, Dennis (1864): La Cité Antique, Paris: Durand. Gagarin, Michael (1981): Drakon and Early Athenian Homicide Law, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Gagarin, Michael (1986): Early Greek Law, Berkeley: University of California Press. Gagarin, Michael ‗The Basileus in Athenian Homicide law‘ in Flensted-Jensen et. al. (2000) 569-579. Gailey, C.W. and Patterson, T.C. ‗State Formation and Uneven Development‘ in Bender, Barbara, Gledhill, John and Larsen, Mogens (Eds) (1988): State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization, London: Unwin Hyman. Galbraith, J.K. (1983): The Anatomy of Power, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gallant, T.W. ―Agricultural systems, land tenure, and the reforms of Solon‖ (1982): British Sociological Association, 77, 111-124. Gallia, A.B. ‗The Republication of Draco‘s Law on Homicide‘ (2004): Classical Quarterly, 54, 451-460. Galaty, Michael L. and Parkinson, William A. (Eds) (2007): Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles: University of California. Gantz, T. (1993): Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Garland, R.S.J. ‗Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Greece‘ (1984): The Annual of the British School at Athens, Volume 79, 75-123. Garland, Robert (1987): The Piraeus from the fifth to the first century B.C., London: Duckworth. 290

Garnsey, P. and Humfress, C. (2001): The Evolution of the Late Antique World, Cambridge: Orchard Academic. Geddes, A.G. ‗Who‘s Who in ―Homeric‖ Society?‘ (1984): The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 34, No. 1, 17-36. Gentile, Emilio (2001): Politics as Religion, translated by George Staunton, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Georgiev, Vladimir I. ‗Griech. ἄλαμ ―Herrscher, Herr, Fürst‖ und basileus‚ ―König‖‘ (1984): Indogermanische Forschungen 89, 125-128. Gernet, Louis (1968): Anthropologie de la Grèce antique, Paris: Maspero. Gibbon, G. (1989): Explanation in Archaeology, Oxford: Blackwell. Godart, L and Sacconi, A. (1973-1976): The Pylos tablets transcribed, Parts 1 and 2, Rome. Godley, A.D. (1920): Herodotus with an English Translation, 4 volumes, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Golden, Mark ‗A Decade of Demography: Recent Trends in the Study of Greek and Roman Populations‘ in Flensted-Jensen, Nielsen, Rubinstein (2000) 23-40. Goldstein, Jonathan A. ‗Solon's Law for an Activist Citizenry‘ (1972): Historia, Vol. 21, 538- 545. Gomme, A.W. (1933): The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., Oxford. Gomme, A.W. ‗The Population of Athens Again‘ (1959): Journal of Hellenic Studies 79, 61- 68. Gordon, Scott (1999): Controlling the State, Constitutionalism from Ancient Athens to Today, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Green, John, Richard (1896): History of the English People, Volume VIII, London. Green, William A. ‗Periodization in European and World History‘ (1992): Journal of World History, Volume 3, Number 1, 13-53. Greenidge, A.H.J. (1914): A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, London: Macmillan & Co. Griffiths, J. Gwyn βαζηιεύο βαζηιέσλ: Remarks on the History of a Title‘ (1953) Classical Philology No. 3, 145-154. 291

Grimm, J. (1967): Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gschnitzer, F. ‗ΒΑ΢ΗΛΔΤ΢ Ein terminologischer Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Königtums bei den Griechen‘ in Menghin, Osmund and Ölberg Herman M. (Hrsg.) (1965): Festschrift Leonhard C. Franz zum 70 Geburtstag, Innsbruch, 99-112. Gschnitzer, F. ‗Stadt und Stamm bei Homer‘ (1971): Chiron 1, 1-17. Gunn, Jeremy T. ‗The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of ―Religion‖ in International Law‘ (2003) Harvard Human Rights Law Journal, Volume 16, 189-215. Gurney O.R. (2003): The Hittites, first published 1952, London: Penguin. Guthrie, W.K.C. (1955): The Greeks and Their Gods, Boston: Beacon Press. Hägg, Robin (Ed.) (1983): The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C., Eighth Century B.C., Tradition and Innovation, Stockholm: Svenska Insititutet I Athen. Hajnal, I. ‗Mykenisches und homerisches Lexikon: Übereinstimmungen, Divergenzen und der Versuch einer Typologie‘ (1998): Innsbrucher Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruch: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruch, 60-69. Hall, Jonathan M. ‗Polis, Community and Ethnic Identity‘ in Shapiro H. Alan (Ed.) (2007): The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece, New York: CUP, 40-60. Hall, Jonathan, M. (2009): A History of the Archaic Greek World, Oxford: OUP. Hamel, Debra (2003): Trying Neaira, The True Story of a Courtesan's Scandalous Life in Ancient Greece, New Haven: Yale University Press. Hamer, Dean (2005): The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes, New York: Doubleday. Hamilton, R. (1992): Choes and Anthesteria: Athenian Iconography and Ritual, Anne Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Hammer, Dean (2003): The Iliad as Politics, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Hammer, Dean ‗Homer and Political thought‘ in Salkever, Stephen (2009): Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought, New York: CUP, 15-41. Hammond, Basil, Edward (1895): The Political Institutions of the Ancient Greeks, London: C. J. Clay and Sons. Hammond, N.G.L. (1963): A History of Greece to 322 B.C., Oxford: OUP. 292

Hansen, H.D. ‗The Prehistoric Pottery on the North Slope of the Acropolis‘ (1937): Hesperia 6, 539-570. Hansen M.H. ‗Seven Hundred Archai in Classical Athens‘ (1980): Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21, 151-173. Hansen, Mogens Herman ‗Initiative and Decision: The Separation of Powers in Fourth Century Athens‘ (1981): Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 22, 345-370. Hansen, Mogens Herman ‗Demographic Reflections on the Number of Athenian Citizens 451- 309B.C.‘ (1982): American Journal of Ancient History, 7, 172-189. Hansen, Mogens Herman (1985): Demography and Democracy: The Number of Athenian Citizens in the Fourth Century B.C., Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Hansen, Mogens Herman (1999 and 1991): The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology, translated J. A. Crook, Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell. Hansen, Mogens Herman ‗Review: A Magisterial Inventory of Athenian Officials‘ (1992): Classical Philology, Volume 87, Number 1, 51-61. Hansen M.H. ‗A Survey of the Use of the Word Polis in Archaic and Classical Athens‘ in Flensted-Jensen, Pernille (2000) Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 173-215. Hansen M.H. ‗Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society‘ in Nielsen, T. H. (2002): Even more Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuggart, 9-47. Hansen, Mogens Herman (2006): The Shotgun Method: The Demography of the Ancient Greek City-State Culture, Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press. Harding, Philip (2008): Story of Athens, Oxford. Harrison, H.R.W. (1971): The Law of Athens, 2 Vols, London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. Harrison, Jane Ellen (1991, 1903): Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Hauvette-Besnault, Amédée (1884): De Archonte Rege, Paris: Ernst Thorin. Havelock, Eric (1963): Preface to Plato, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Heisenberg, Werner (1971): Physics and Beyond, London: Allen & Unwin. 293

Heitsch, Ernst (2001): Gesammelte Schriften, 1: Zum frühgriechischen Epos, München: K. G. Saur. Henderson, E.F. (Ed.). (1892): Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, London: George Bell. Henderson, J. ‗Women and the Athenian Dramatic Festivals‘ (1991): Transactions of the American Philological Association, 133-147. Herter, Hans ‗Theseus der Jonier‘ (1936): Rheinisches Museum 85, 177-239. Herter, H. Theseus in Pauly, August Friedrich von (Ed.) (1973): Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplement 13, Stuttgart: A. Druckenmüller Verlag, 1045-1238. Heubeck, A. (1958): Indogermanische Forschungen 63, 134-135. Hignett, C. (1952): A History of the Athenian Constitution, Oxford: Clarendon. Hiller, Stephan ‗Dependant Personnel in Mycenaean Texts‘ in Heltzer, Michael and Lipiński, E. (1988): Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.), Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 53-68. Hocart, A.M. (1927): Kingship, Oxford: OUP. Hodder I. (2004): Reading the Past, Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 3rd Edition, Cambridge: CUP. Hoffmann, C.W. ‗Die Polis bei Homer‘ (1956): Festschrift für Bruno Snell, München: Beck, 153-165. Hoffman, G.L. (1997): Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Contacts with Iron Age Crete, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Holland, Tom (2005): Persian Fire, The First World Empire and the Battle for the West, London: Little Brown Hölscher, Tonio ‗The City of Athens: Space, Symbol, Structure‘ in Molho, Anthony, Raaflaub, Kurt, and, Emlen, Julia (Eds) (1991): City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 355-379. Hood, Sinclair (1978): The Arts in Prehistoric Greece, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hooker, J.T. (1980): Linear B, London: Bristol Classical Press. Hooker, J.T. ‗The Coming of the Greeks‘ (1976): Historia, Vol. 25, No., 2, 129-145. 294

Hornblower, Simon A. (1991): A Commentary on Thucydides, Vol. 1, New York: OUP. Houby-Nielsen, Sanne ‗Attica: a View from the Sea‘ in Raaflaub and Wees (2009) 189-211. Hughes, Bettany (2011): The Hemlock Cup, Socrates, Athens and the Search for the Good Life, London: Vintage Books. Humphreys, S.C. (2004): The Strangeness of Gods, Oxford: OUP. Hunt, Bernard P. and Grenfell, Arthur S. (1908): The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 14 Volumes, London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Hurwit, Jeffery M. (1999): The Athenian Acropolis, Cambridge: CUP. Iakovidis, S.E. (1962): Ζ Μπθελαïθή Αθξόπνιηο ησλ Αζελώλ, Athens: University of Athens. Iakovidis, S.E. (1983): Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Immerwahr, Sara Anderson (1971): The Athenian Agora XIII: The Neolithic and Bronze Ages, Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies in Athens. Jacoby, Felix ‗Die Attische Königsliste‘ (1902): Klio 3, 406-439. Jacoby, Felix (1949): Atthis: the Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jacoby, F. (1954): Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden: Brill. James, Peter (1993): Centuries of Darkness, a challenge to the conventional chronology of Old World archaeology, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Jameson, Michael H. ‗Religion in the Athenian Democracy‘ in Morris and Raaflaub (1997) 171-195. Janko, R. (1982): Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Tradition, Cambridge and New York: CUP. Jeffery, L.H. ‗The Boustrophedon Sacral Inscriptions from the Agora‘ (1948): Hesperia, 17, 86-111. Johnson, Curtis N. (1990): Aristotle‘s Theory of the State, London: Macmillan. Johnson, Gregory A. ‗Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory, Far Outside Looking In‘ in Cordell, Linda S. and Gumerman, George J. (Eds) (1989): Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Johnson, Gregory A. ‗Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress‘ in Renfrew, Colin, Rowlands Michael J. and Segraves Barbara Abbot (Eds) (1982): Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, New York: Academic Press. 295

Jones Nicholas F. (1999): The Associations of Classical Athens. The Response to Democracy, Oxford: OUP. Jowett, Benjamin (1881) Thucydides translated into English, Volume 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press.. Joy, Morny (Ed.) (2011): Continental Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion, Calgary: Springer. Judeich, Walther (1905): Topographie von Athen, München: C. H. Beck. Kahrstedt, Ulrich ‗Untersuchungen zur Magistratur in Athen‘ (1936): Studien Zum Öffentlichen Recht Athens, Teil II, Stuggart: W. Kohlhammer. Kapparis, K. ‗Assessors of Magistrates (paredroi) in Classical Athens‘ (1998): Historia 47, 383-393. Kapparis, Konstantinos (1999): Apollodoros ‗Against Neaira‘ [D. 59], Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Keaney, John, J. (1992): The Composition of Aristotle‘s Athenaion Politeia, Observation and Explanation, New York and Oxford: OUP. Kearns, Emily (2010): Ancient Greek Religion, A Sourcebook, Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kearns, Emily ‗Religion‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 735-738. Keil, Bruno (1892): Die Solonische Verfassung in Aristoteles Verfassungsrechte Athens, Berlin: R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung. Kelder, Jorrit, M. ‗A great King at Mycenae. An Argument for the Wanax as Great King and the Lawagetas as Vassal Ruler‘ (2008): Palamedes, Vol. 3, 49-74. Kemble, J.M. (1843-1856): Saxons in England, London: Aelfric Society. Kent R.G. (1953): Old Persian, Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, 2nd Edition, New Haven: American Oriental Society. Kenyon, Sir Frederick (1920): de Atheniensium Republica, Oxford: OUP. Kerényi, Carl (1976): Dionysos Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life, translated by Ralph Manheim, Princeton, N. J: Princeton University Press. Kiegeland, J. ‗Wie wohnten die Tyrannen‘ in Hoepfner, W. and Zimmer, G. (eds.) (1993): Die Griechische Polis. Architektur und Politik, Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth, 46-47. 296

Kilian, K. ‗Pylos-Funktionsanalyse einer Residenz de Späten Palastzeit‘ (1984): Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 14, 37- 48. Kilian Klaus ‗The Emergence of Wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces‘ (1988a): Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Volume 7, Issue 3, 291-302. Kilian, K. ‗Mycenaeans Up to Date. Trends and Changes in Recent Research‘ in French, E. B. and Wardle, K.A. (Eds) (1988b): Problems in Greek Prehistory, Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 115-152. Kim H.S. ‗Archaic Coinage as Evidence for the Use of Money‘ in Meadows, A. and Shipton, K. (Eds), (2001): Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford: OUP, 13-19. King, L.W. (2007 and 1915) The Code of Hammurabi, translation, Charleston: bibliobazaar. Kinkel, Godofredus (1877): Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Leipzig: Lipsiae. Kirchner, J. (1901-1903): Prosographia Attica, Berolini: Reimer. Kirk, W. (1895): Demosthenic Style in the Private Orations, Baltimore. Kober, Alice. E. ‗Inflection in Linear Class B: 1-Declension‘ (1946): American Journal of Archaeology, 50, 268-276. Kolb, F. (1981): Agora und Theater, Volks- und Festversammlung, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Kolb, F. ‗Die Bau-, Religions- und Kulturpolitik der Peisistratiden‘ (1977): Jahrbuch des Deutschen ArchÑologischen Instituts 92, 99-138. Kopaka, Katerina ‗A Day in Potnia‘s Life. Aspects of Potnia and Reflected ‗Mistress‘ Activities in the Aegean Bronze Age‘ (2001): Aegaeum 22, 15-22. Kopcke, G. ‗Mycenaean Kingship—A Speculative View‘ in Rolinger, R. and Ulf, C. (Eds) (2004): Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction, Munich: Franz Steiner Verlag, 179-180. Kornemann, E. ‗Athen und Attika‘ (1934): Staaten, Völker, Männer, Leipzig: Dieterich. Korres, M. ‗The History of the Acropolis Monuments‘ in Economakis, R. (Ed.) (1994): Acropolis Restoration, The CCAM Interventions, London: Academy Editions, 34–51. Kostof, Spiro (1995): A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals, New York: OUP. Koumanoudis, S.Α. (1884) Ἐυημεπὶρ Ἀπσαιολογική, 161. 297

Kraay, Colin M. ‗Hoards, Small Change and Origin of Coinage‘ (1964): The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 84, 76-91. Krentz, Peter (1982): The Thirty at Athens, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Kroll, John, H., and Waggoner, Nancy, M. ‗Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens, Corinth and Aegina‘ (1984): American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 88, No 3, 325-340. Kuhn, G. ‗Untersuchungen zur Funktion de Säulenhalle in archaischer und klassischer Zeit‘ (1985): Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 169-444. Kyle, Donald G. ‘The Panathenaic Games: Sacred and Civic Athletics‘ in Neils (1996) 106- 136. Laffineur, R. ‗Aspects of rulership at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period‘ (1995): Aegaeum, 11, 81-93. Lalonde, Gerald V. ‗Horoi‘ in Lalonde, Langdon and Walbank (1991) 1-51. Lalonde, Gerald V., Langdon, Merle K. and Walbank, Michael B. ‗Inscriptions‘ (1991): The Athenian Agora XIX, Princeton NJ: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Lamb, W.R.M. (1925): Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lambert, S.D. ‗The Sacrificial Calendar of Athens‘ (2002): British Sociological Association 97, 353-99. Lang, Andrew (1905): Homer and His Age, London and New York: Longmans. Lang, Mabel L. (1969): The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Volume II, The Frescoes, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Langdon, Merle K. ‗Poletai Records‘ in Lalonde, Langdon and Walbank (1991) 53-138. Lapatin, K. (2001): Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford: OUP. Lapinkivi, Pirjo (2004): The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in Light of the Comparative Evidence, Helsinki: The Neo Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Larson Lethen, Margaret, Stamires, George A., Meritt, Benjamin D. ‗Greek Inscriptions‘ (1957): Hesperia 26, No. 1, 24-97. Latte, Kurt (1960). Römische Religionsgeschichte, Volume 4, München: Beck. Launderville, Dale (2003) Piety and Politics, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. 298

Loraux, Nicole (1993): The Children of Athena, translated by Caroline Levine, Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press. Lavelle, B.M. (1993): The Sorrow and the Pity: A Prolegomenon to a History of Athens under the Peisistratids, c. 560-510 B.C. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Lavelle, B.M. (2005): Fame, Money and Power, The Rise of Peisistratos and ―Democratic‖ Tyranny at Athens, Ann Arbor: University Of Michigan Press. Leach, E.R. (1954 and 1964): Political Systems of Highland Burma, London: G. Bell & Sons. Ledl, A. (1914): Studien zur älteren athenischen Verfassungsgeschichte, Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Lehman-Haupt, C.F. (1912). Solon of Athens, Liverpool: University Press of Liverpool. Lejeune M. ‗A propos de la titulature de Midas‘ (1969): Athenaeum NS 47, 179-192. Lejeune, M. ‗Les forgerons de Pylos‘ (1961): Historia 10, 409-434. Lejeune, Michel (1971): Mémoires de philologie mycénienne, 3 Volumes, Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. Lemos, Irene S. ‗Athens and Lefkandi: A Tale of Two Sites‘ in Deger-Jalkotzy and Lemos (2006) 505-530. Lenz, John, Richard (1993): Kings and the Ideology of Kingship in Early Greece (c. 1200-700 B.C.): Epic, Archaeology and History, Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University. Levi, Peter (1971): Pausanias, Guide to Greece 1, London: Penguin. Lewis, D.M. ‗Law on the Lesser Panathenaia‘ (1959): Hesperia, 28, 239-247. Liddell, H.G. Scott, R. Jones, H.S. and McKenzie, R. (Eds) (1996): A Greek English Lexicon, 9th edition, Oxford: OUP. Lindgren, Margaret (1973): The People of Pylos, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Linforth, Ivan Mortimer (1919): Solon the Athenian, Berkeley: University of California Press. Lipsius, J. H. (1905-15): Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren, 3 Volumes, Leipzig: Reisland. Loewenstein, Karl (1957): Political Power and the Governmental Process, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lofberg, John Oscar (1917): Sycophancy in Athens, Menasha WI: Collegiate Press. 299

Lorimer, H.L. ‗Homer and the Art of Writing, A Sketch of Opinion 1713 and 1939‘ (1948): American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 52, No. 1, 11-23. Luce, J.V. ‗The Polis in Homer and Hesiod‘ (1978): Proceedings of the Irish Academy, 78, 1- 15. Lukes, S. (1974): Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan. MacDowell, Douglas, M. (1989): Andokides, On the Mysteries, Oxford: Clarendon Press. MacDowell, Douglas, M. (1978): The Law in Classical Athens, Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. MacDowell, Douglas, M. (1999 and 1966): Athenian Homicide Law, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Maddoli, Gianfranco di (1970): ΓΑΜΟ΢ e ΒΑ΢ΗΛΖΔ΢, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 12, 7-57. MacIlwain, Charles Howard (1947): Constitutionalism Ancient and Modern, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Macurdy, Grace M. ‗Basilinna and Basilissa, the alleged title of the ‗queen Archon‘ in Athens‘ (1928): American Journal of Philology, Vol. 49, No. 3, 276-282. Maidment, K.J. (1941): Antiphon, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Maier, Franz George ―Priest Kings in Cyprus‖ in Peltenburg, E. G. (1989): Early Society in Cyprus, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 376-91. Mallory, J.P. (1989): In Search of the Indo-Europeans, London: Thames and Hudson. Manning, J.G. and Morris, Ian (Eds) (2005): The Ancient Economy, Evidence and Models, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mantis, A.G. ‗Πξνβιήκαηα ηεο εηθνλνγξαθίαο ησλ ἱεξέσλ θαη ησλ ηεξέσλ ζηελ αξραία ειιεληθή ηέρλε‘ (1990): Αξραηνινγηθόλ Γειηίνλ, Supplement 42, Athens. Manville, Philip Brook (1990): The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens, Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press. Maran, J. ‗Kiapha Thiti: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen II.2:2. Jt. V. Chr.: Keramik und Kleinfunde‘ (1992): Marburger Winckelmann-Programme 1990, Marburg. 300

Marchant, E.C. (1923): Xenophon in Seven Volumes, Vol. 4, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Marchant, E.C. and Bowersock, G.W. (1925): Xenophon in Seven Volumes, Volume 7, Constitution of the Athenians, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Marinatos, Spyridon N. ‗ΓΗΟΓΔΝΔΗ΢ ΒΑ΢ΗΛΖΔ΢‘(1951) Studies presented to David Moore Robinson on his seventieth birthday, Volume 1, translated by Constantine G. Yavis, St Louis MO: Washington University, 126-134. Mark, I.S. ‗The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages and Chronology‘ (1993): Hesperia Supplement 26, Princeton. Marshall, Cecilia (1989): A Guide Through the Old Testament, Westminster: Knox Press. Martha, Jules (1882): Les Sacerdoces athéniens, Paris: E. Thorin. Mauss, M. (1967): The Gift, Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, New York and London: Norton. Mayhew, Robert ‗King-Bees and Mother-Wasps: A Note on Ideology and Gender in Aristotle's Entomology‘ (1999): Phronesis, Vol. 44, No. 2, 127-134 Meadows, Andrew and Skipton, Kirsty (eds) (2001): Money and Its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford: OUP. 2001 Meiggs, L. and Lewis, D.M. (1988): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, revised edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meillet, A. ‗Les noms des chefs en Grec‘ (1932) Mélanges Gustave Glotz, Vol. II, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 587-589. Melena J.L. and Olivier J. –P. ‗TITHEMI: the Tablets and Nodules in Linear B from Tiryns, Thebes and Mycenae‘ (1991): Supplement to Minos 12. Melena, José, and Palaima, Thomas G. ‗100 years of Linear B from Knossos‘ (2001): American Journal of Archaeology, 105, No. 2, 316-320. Meritt, Benjamin D. ‗Greek Inscriptions (14-27)‘ (1936): Hesperia, Volume 5, 355-441. Meritt, Benjamin D. ‗Greek Inscriptions‘ (1939): Hesperia, Volume 8, Number 1, 48-82. Meritt, Benjamin D. ‗Greek Inscriptions‘ (1963): Hesperia, Volume 32, Number 1, 1-56. Merquior, J.G. (1980): Rousseau and Weber: Two Studies in the Theory of Legitimacy, London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 301

Meyer, E. (1964): Römischer Staat und Staatsgedanke, 3rd edition, Zürich: Artemis. Mikalson, J.D. ‗Erechtheus and the Panathenaia‘ (1976): American Journal of Philology, 97, 141-153. Mikalson, J.D. (1983): Athenian Popular Religion, Chapel Hill. Miles, Margaret, M. (1998): The Athenian Agora XXXI: The City Eleusinion, Princeton NJ: The American School of Classical Studies in Athens. Miller, Margaret ‗The Ependytes in Classical Athens‘ (1989): Hesperia 58, 313-329. Miller, Molly ‗The Accepted Date for Solon: Precise, But Wrong?‘ (1969): Arethusa 2, 62-86. Miller, Stephen, G. ‗Architecture as Evidence for the Identity of the Early Polis‘ in Hansen, M. H. (1995): Sources for the Ancient Greek City State, Copenhagen, 201-242. Millett, D. ‗Hesiod and His World‘ (1984): Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society 210, 84-115. Missiou, Anna (2007): The Subversive Oratory of Andokides: Politics, Ideology and Decision- Making in Democratic Athens, Cambridge: CUP. Mitchell, Lynette G. and Rhodes, P. J. (Eds) (1997): The development of the polis in Archaic Greece, London and New York: Routledge. Moggi, M. (1976): I sinecismi interstatall greci volume 1: Dalle origini al 338 a. C. Pisa: Marlin. Momigliano, A. ‗Origins of the Roman Republic‘ in Singleton, Charles S. (Ed.) (1969): Interpretation: Theory and Practice, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1-34. Mondi, Robert ‗΢ΚΖΠΣΟΤΥΟΗ ΒΑ΢ΗΛΔΗ΢ An argument for Divine Kingship in Early Greece‘ (1980): Arethusa, Volume 13, Issue 2, 203-216. Moore, J.M. (ed.) (2010 and 1975): Aristotle and Xenophon, Berkeley: University of California Press. Morel, W. (1927): Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum et Lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium, Stutgardiae: B. G. Teubneri. Moret, Alexandre (1902): Du caractère religieux de la royauté pharaonique, Paris: Ernest Leroux. Moret, Alexandre (1927): The Nile and Egyptian Civilization, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 302

Morgan, Lewis, H. (1978a): The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Peking: Foreign Languages Press. Morgan, Lewis, H. (1978b): The Greek Gens, Totowa N.J: Rowman and Littlefield. Morpurgo-Davies, A. ‗Terminology of Power and Terminology of Work in Greek and Linear B.‘ (1979): In Colloquium Mycenaeum, 87-108. Morris, I.M. ‗The use and abuse of Homer‘ (1986): Classical Antiquity 5, 81-138. Morris, Ian (1987): Burial and Ancient Society: The rise of the Greek City State, Cambridge: CUP. Morris, Ian in Morris, Ian (Ed.) (1994): Classical Greece: Ancient histories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge: CUP. Morris, Ian, and Raaflaub, Kurt A. (Eds) (1997): Democracy 2500? Questions and Challenges, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Morris, Ian ‗Archaeology as a Kind of Anthropology (A Response to David B. Small)‘ in Morris and Raaflaub (1997) 229-239. Morris, Ian (2000): Archaeology as Cultural History, Oxford: Blackwell. Morris, Ian ‗Equality and the Origins of Democracy‘ in Robinson (Ed.) (2004) 45-75. Morris, Ian ‗Archaeology, Standards of Living, and Greek Economic History‘ in Manning and Morris (2005) 91-126. Morris, Ian ‗The Growth of Greek Cities in the first Millennium BC‘ in Storey, Glen (ed.) (2006): Urbanism in the Preindustrial World; Cross Cultural Approaches, Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press, 27-51. Morris, Ian ‗The Eighth-century Revolution‘ in Raaflaub and Wees (2009) 64-80. Morris, Sarah ‗Imaginary Kings: Alternatives to Monarchy n Early Greece‘ in Morgan, Kathryn A. (Ed.) (2003): Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece, Popular Tyranny, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1-24. Mountjoy, P.A. (1995): Mycenaean Athens, Jonsered: Paul Åströms. Müller, Carolus (Ed.) (1975): Fragmenta Historicum Graecorum (unaltered reprint of original 1841-1870 edition), Frankfurt: Minerva. Mumford, Lewis (1961): The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects, New York. Harcourt, Brace and World Inc. 303

Munn, Mark (2000): The School of History, Athens in the Age of Socrates, Berkeley: University of California Press. Munn, Mark (2006): The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia, Berkeley: University of California Press. Murdoch, Iris (1995): Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, London: Penguin. Murray, A.T. (1939): Demosthenes with an English translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Murray, Gilbert (2002): Five Stages of Greek Religion, first published 1912, New York: Dover. Murray, Oswyn (1993): Early Greece, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Mylonas, G.E. ‗The Cult Centre of Mycenae‘ (1981): Proceedings of the British Academy 67, 307-320. Mylonas, George E. (1961): Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton New Jersey. Nagy, Gregory ‗Homer and Athens‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 112-116. Neils, Jennifer (1992): Goddess and Polis, The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press. Nicholson, Harold (1962): Kings, Courts and Monarchy, New York: Simon and Schuster. Nikoloudis, Stavroula (2006): The ra-wa-ke-ta, Ministerial Authority and Mycenaean Cultural Identity, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Nilsson, Martin P. (1932): The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology, New York: Norton. Nilsson, Martin P. (1964): A History of Greek Religion, second edition first published 1952, translated by F.D. Fielden, New York: Norton. Nongbri, Brent ‗Dislodging ―Embedded‖ Religion: A Brief Note on a Scholarly Trope‘ (2008): Numen 55, 440-460. Ober, Josiah (1989): Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People, Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press. Ober, Josiah ‗Revolution Matters: Democracy as Demotic Action (A Response to Kurt A. Raaflaub)‘ in Morris and Raaflaub (Eds) (1997) 67-103. Ober, Josiah (2008): Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens, Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press. Ogden, Daniel (1997): The Crooked Kings of Ancient Greece, London: Duckworth. 304

Oikonomides, Al. N. (1964): The Two Agoras in Ancient Athens: A New Commentary on Their History and Development, Topography and Monuments, Chicago: Argonaut Inc Publishers. Oliver, James H. ‗Jacoby‘s Treatment of the Exegetes‘ (1954): American Journal of Philology 75, 160-174. O‘Neill, James L. (1995): The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Ong, Walter, J. (1987): Orality and Literacy, Oxford: Routledge. Osborne, M. (1985): Demos: the Discovery of Classical Attica, Cambridge: CUP. Osborne, R. (1987): Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and Its Countryside, London: George Philip Osborne, Robin ‗A Crisis in Archaeological History? The Seventh Century in Attica‘ (1989): British School at Athens, 297-322. Osborne, R. ‗Archaeology, the Salaminioi, and the Politics of Sacred Space in Archaic Attica‘ in Alcock, S. and Osborne, R. (1994): Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and the Politics of Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, Oxford: OUP, 143-160. Osborne, Robin (2009): Greece in the Making, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Routledge. Ostwald, M. ‗The Prytaneion Decree Re-Examined‘ (1951): The American Journal of Philology 72, 24-46. Ostwald, Martin, (1986): From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law, Berkeley: University of California Press. Ostwald, M. ‗The Reform of the Athenian State by Cleisthenes‘ (1988): Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 4, 2nd edition, 303-346. Otto, Walter, F. (1963): Dionysos, Trans. Robert B. Palmer, Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. Paddayya, K. (1990): The New Archaeology and Aftermath, a view from outside the Anglo- American world, Pune: Ravish Publishers. Padgug, Robert A. ‗Eleusis and the Union of Attica‘ (1972): Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Vol. 13:2, 135-150. 305

Page, Denys L. (1959): History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley: University of California Press. Palaima, Thomas G. ‗The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax‘ (1996): Aegaeum 11, 120-122. Palaima, Thomas G. ‗Kn 02-Tn 316‗ in Deger-Jalkotzy, S., Hiller S, Panagl, O., Nightingale, G. and Lindner, T. (Eds) (1999): Floreant Studia Mycenaea, Wien: Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 437-456. Palaima, Thomas G. ‗Wanax and Related Power Terms‘ in Deger-Jalkotzy and Lemos (2006) 53-71. Palaima, Thomas G. ‗Mycenaean Society and Kingship: Cui Bono? A Counter Speculative View‘ (2007): Aegaeum 28, 129-140. Palaima, Thomas G. ‗Linear B‘ in Cline (2010) 356-372. Palmer, L.R. (1963): The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Palmer, Leonard R. (1961): Mycenaeans and Minoans: Aegean prehistory in the light of the Linear B Tablets, London: Faber and Faber. Palmer, Leonard R. ‗Review‘ (1960): Gnomon, 32. Bd., H. 3, 193-200. Pantou, Panagiota A. ‗Mycenaean Dimini in Context: Investigating Regional Variability and Socioeconomic Complexities in Late Bronze Age Greece‘ (2010): American Journal of Archaeology, Volume 114, No. 3 381-401. Papadopoulos, J.K. ‗The Original Kerameikos of Athens and the Siting of the Classical Agora‘ (1996): Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 37, 107-128. Papadopoulos, John K. ‗Ceramicus Redivivus‘ (2003): Hesperia Supplement 31, Princeton NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Papazarkadas, Nikolaos ‗The Epakreis and the Pre-Cleisthenic Trittyes‘ (2007): The Classical Quarterly 57: 22-32. Papazarkadas, Nikolaos (2011): Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, Oxford: OUP. Papakonstantiou, Zinon (2008): Lawmaking and Adjudication in Archaic Greece, London: Duckworth. Parke, H.W. (1977): Festivals of the Athenians, London: Thames and Hudson. Parker, R. ‗Myth of Early Athens‘ in Bremmer J. (Ed.) (1986): Interpretation of Greek Mythology, 306

Parker, Robert (1996): Athenian Religion, A History, Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press. Parker, Robert (2007): Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parker, Victor ‗Σύξαλλνο: The Semantics of a Political Concept from Archilochus to Aristotle‘(1998): Hermes 126, 145-172. Patterson, T. and Gailey, Christine W. (Eds) (1987): Power Relations and State Formation, London: CUP. Pearson, Lionel (1987): The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and his Predecessors, Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press. Pearson, Lionel ‘Apollodorus, the Eleventh Attic Orator’ Wallach, Luitpold (Ed.) (1966) The Classical Tradition, Ithaca N.Y: Cornell University Press, 347-359. Peirce, S.M. (1984): Representations of Animal Sacrifice in Attic Vase-Painting 580-380 B. C., Doctoral Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College. Pelon, O. (1976): Tholoi, Tumuli, et cercles funéraires, Paris: École Française D'Athènes. Phillips, David D. ‗Avengers of Blood‘ (2008): Historia Einzelschriften 202, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Perpillou, J.L. (1973): Les substantifs grecs en –eús, Paris: Klincksieck. Pickard-Cambridge, Sir Arthur (1988): The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, second revised edition by John Gould and D.M. Lewis, Oxford: Clarendon Pres. Piérart, M., ‗Les euthynoi athéniens‘ (1971): L'Antiquité Classique 40, 526-573. Pikard, John, ‗Dionysus ἐλ Λίκλαηο‘ (1891): The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of Fine Arts, Vol. 8, No. 1, 56-82. Plommer W.H. ‗The Tyranny of the Archon List‘ (1969): The Classical Review, New Series, Volume 19, Number 2, 126. Podlecki, A.J. in Gregory, T.E. and Podlecki, A.J. (Eds) (1979): Panathenaia, Kansas: Coronado Press, 51-74. Polignac, François, de (1995): Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State, Translation Janet Lloyd, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Polyani, Karl (1944): The Great Transformation, The Political and Economic Origins of our Time, New York: Farrar & Rinehart. 307

Pomeroy, Sarah B., Burstein, Stanley M., Donlan, Walter, Tolbert Roberts, Jennifer (Eds) (2009): A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society and Culture, 2nd Edition, New York: OUP. Popper, Karl (1971): The Open Society and Its Enemies, 5th edn, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Price, B.J. ‗Secondary State Formation: an Explanatory Model‘ in Cohen, R. and Service E. (Eds) (1978): Origins of the State, the Anthropology of Political Evolution, Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 161-168. Price, B.J. ‗Shifts of production and organization: a cluster interaction model‘ (1977): Current Anthropology 18, 209-234. Pritchett, William Kendrick (1993): The Liar School of Herodotos, Amsterdam: W. C. Gieben. Puhvel, J. ‗Greek ΑΝΑΞ‘ (1956): Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 73, 202-222. Qviller, BjØrn ‗The dynamics of Homeric society‘ (1981): Symbolae Osloenses, Vol. LVI, 109-155. Pullen, Daniel J. and Tartaron, Thomas F. ―Where‘s the Palace? The Absence of State Formation in the late Bronze Age Corinthia‖ in Galaty and Parkinson (Eds) (2007) Chapter 14, 146-158. Raaflaub, K. ‗Die Anfänge des politischen Denkens bei den Griechen‘(1989): Historische Zeitschrift, Band 248, 1-32. Raaflaub K.A. ‗City-State, Territory and Empire‘ in Molho, A., Raaflaub, K. A. and Emlen J. (Eds) (1991): City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy, Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 565-88. Raaflaub, Kurt ‗Homer to Solon: The Rise of the Polis‘ in Hansen, Mogens Herman (Ed.) (1993): The Ancient Greek City State, Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Raaflaub, Kurt, [1997a] ‗Homeric Society‘ in Morris, Ian, and Powell, Barry (1997): A New Companion to Homer, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 624-648. Raaflaub K.A. [1997b] ‗Power in the Hands of the People: Foundations of Athenian Democracy‘ in Morris and Raaflaub (1997) 31-66. 308

Raaflaub K.A. [1997c] ‗The Thetes and Democracy (a Response to Josiah Ober)‘ in Morris and Raaflaub (1997) 87-103. Raaflaub, Kurt A. [1997d] ‗Soldiers, Citizens and the Evolution of the Early Greek Polis‘ in Mitchell and Rhodes (1997) 49-59. Raaflaub, Kurt A. (Ed.) (2005a): Social Struggles in Archaic Rome, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Raaflaub, Kurt A. ‗The Conflict of the Orders‘ in Raaflaub, Kurt A. (Ed.) (2005b): Social Struggles in Archaic Rome, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Raaflaub, Kurt A. ‗Historical Approaches to Homer‘ in Deger-Jalkotzy and Lemos (2006) 449- 462. Raaflaub, Kurt, A., Ober Josiah, and Wallace, Robert (Eds) (2007): Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, Berkeley: University of California Press. Raaflaub, Kurt, A. and Wallace, Robert ‗ ―People power‖ and Egalitarian Trends‘ in Raaflaub et al (2007) 22-47. Raaflaub, Kurt, A. and Wees, Hans van (Eds) (2009): A Companion to Archaic Greece, Oxford Raaflaub, Kurt, A. ‗Society, Homeric‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 810-813. Rabatel, Liliane (2011) Klèrôtèrion. le tirage au sort dans le monde grec antique: machines, institutions, usages, Doctoral Dissertation, Lyon. Rackham, H. (1952): Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 20, The Athenian Constitution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Raubitschek, Antony E. (Ed.) (1949): Dedications from the Athenian Acropolis, A Catalogue of Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries, Cambridge MA: The Archaeological Institute of America. Reece, Steve ‗Homer‘s Iliad and Odyssey: From Oral Performance to Written Text‘ in Amodio, Mark, C. (2005): New Directions in Oral Theory, Tempe: Arizona Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Arizona, 43-89. Reed, E.D. (1995): Pandora: Women in Classical Greece, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Renfrew, C. (1972): The Emergence of Civilization: the Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC., London: Methuen. 309

Renfrew, Colin ‗Systems Collapse as Social Transformation‘ in Renfrew, Colin, and Cook, Kenneth L. (1979): Transformations: mathematical approaches to culture change, New York: Academic Press, 481-506. Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. (Eds) (1986): Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge: CUP. Renfrew, C. (1988): Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, New York: CUP. Rhodes, P.J. (1972): The Athenian Boule, Oxford: OUP. Rhodes, P.J. ‗Basileus: The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece by R. Drews‘ (1984a). Phoenix, Vol. 38, No. 2, 180-182. Rhodes, P.J. (1984b): Aristotle: The Athenian Constitution, Middlesex and New York: Penguin. Rhodes, P.J. ‗The Athenian Code of Laws, 410-399 B.C.‘(1991): Journal of Hellenic Studies, 111, 87-100. Rhodes, P.J. (1992/1981): A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rhodes, P.J. ‗State and Religion in Athenian Inscriptions‘ (2009): Greece & Rome, Vol. 56, No. 1, 1-13. Richards A.I. ‗Keeping the king divine‘ (1968): Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23-35. Rigoglioso, Marguerite (2009). The Cult of Divine Birth in Ancient Greece, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rihill, T.E. ‗EKTHMOROI: Partners in Crime?‘ (1991): Journal of Hellenic Studies, 101-127. Robinson, Eric, W. (1997): The First Democracies: Early Popular Government outside Athens, Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Robinson, Eric, W. (Ed.) (2004): Ancient Greek Democracy, Readings and Resources, Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Robinson, R. (1954): Definition, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Roebuck, C. ‗Some Aspects of Urbanization in Corinth‘ (1972): Hesperia, 41, 96-129. 310

Rohde Erwin (1908): Psyche Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube de Griechen, 7 Volumes, Tübingen and Leipzig: J.C.B Mohr (Siebeck). Rose, Peter, W. ‗Class Ambivalence in the Odyssey‘ (1975): Historia, 24, 129-149. Rose, Peter, W. (1992): Sons of Gods , Children of the Earth, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Rosivach, Vincent J. (1994): The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth Century Athens, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rosivach, V.J. ‗Review: Maureen B. Cavanaugh, Eleusis and Athens‘ (1996): Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 97.2.22. Rousioti, D. ‗Did Mycenaeans believe in theriomorphic divinities?‘ in Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (2001): Potnia: deities and religion, the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Congress, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 2 April 2000, Liege and Austin: Liege & Austin, 305-311. Roussel, D. ‗Tribu et cité, études sur les groupes sociaux dans les cités grecques aux époques archaïque et classique‘ (1976): Annales littéraires de l‘université de Besançon 193, Centre de recherches d‘histoire ancienne, Volume 23, Paris. Rubinstein, Lene ‗Differentiated Rhetorical Strategies in the Athenian Courts‘ in Gagarin, Michael and Cohen, David (2005): The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, Cambridge: CUP, 129-145. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich ‗Theoretical Generalization and Historical Particularity in the Comparative Sociology of Reinhard Bendix‘ in Skocpol, Theda (Ed.) (1984): Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, Cambridge: CUP, 129-169. Ruijgh, C.J. (1957): L‘Élément achéen dans la langue épique, Assen: Van Goroum, G. A. Hak & Prakke. Ruijgh, C.J. (1967): Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Ruijgh, C.J. ‗Fάλαμ et ses dérivés dan les texts mycéniens‘ in Deger-Jalkotzy, S., Hiller S, Panagl, O., Nightingale, G. and Lindner, T. (Eds) (1999): Floreant Studia Mycenaea, Wien: Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 521-535. Runciman, W.G. ‗Origins of States: The Case of Archaic Greece‘ (1982): Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 24, No. 3, 351-377. 311

Russo, J. and Fernandez-Galiano, M. and Heubeck, A. (Eds) (1992): A Commentary on Homer‘s Odyssey, Vol III, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rutter, J.B. and Zerner C.W. ‗Early Hellado-Minoan Contacts‘ in Hagg, R. and Marinatos, N. (1984): The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality, Stockholm: Paul Åströms, 75-82. Rutter, J. ‗Cultural Novelties in the Post-Palatial Aegean World: Indices of Vitality or Decline?‘ in Ward, W.A. and Joukowsky, M.S. (Eds) (1992): The Crisis Years: the 12th Century B.C., Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt, 61-78. Rigsby, Kent J. ‗ Apollo and the Archons‘ in Reger, Gary, Ryan F. X. and Winters, Timothy F. (Eds) (2010): Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy, Ausonius Éditions, Bordeaux: De Boccard, 171-393. Sahlins, Marshall ‗Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia‘ (1963): Comparative Studies in Society and History 5, 285-303. Sakellariou, M.B. (1989): The Polis-State, Definition and Origin, Athens and Paris: National Hellenic Research Foundation/De Boccard. Salkever, Stephen (Ed.) (2009): Ancient Greek Political Thought, New York: CUP. Samuel, Alan, E. (1972): Greek and Roman Chronology, Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity, München: C. H. Beck. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen (Ed.) (2000): Peisistratos and the Tyranny, a Reappraisal of the Evidence, Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Sandys, John Edward (1893): Aristotle‘s Constitution of Athens, London and New York: Macmillan & Co. Sarkady, János ‗Attika im 12. bis 10. Jahrhundert‘ (1966): Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 2, 9-27. Sarkady, János‚ ‗Ende des Königtums und Anfang des Archontes in Athen‘ (1967): Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 3, 23-34. Sartori, Giovanni ‗Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion‘ (1962): The American Political Science Review, Volume 56, Number 4, 853-864. Sasaki, Kohan ‗Priest, Shaman, King‘ (1990): Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 17/2-3, 105-128. 312

Sattenspiel, L. and Harpending, H.C. ‗Stable Populations and Skeletal age‘ (1983): American Antiquity 48, 489-498. Scafuro, Adele C. ‗IG II² 204: Boundary Setting and Legal Process in Classical Athens‘ in Thür, G. and Fernández, Nieto F. J. (Eds) (1999): Symposion 1999: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Weimar, Köln and Vienna, 123-143. Schäfer J. in Hägg (1983). Schaps, David M. (2004): The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Scheidel, Walter ‗The Greek Demographic Expansion: Models and Comparisons‘ (2003): Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 123, 120-140. Scheidel, W. ‗Gräberstatistik und Bevölkerungsgeschichte: Attika im achten Jahrhundert‘ in Rollinger, R. and Ulf, C. (2004): Griechische Archaik: Interne Entwicklungen – Externe Impulse, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 177-186. Schlaifer, Robert ‗The Cult of Athena Pallenis: (Athenaeus VI 234-235)‘ (1943): Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Volume 54, 35-67. Schmalz, Geoffrey C.R. ‗The Athenian Prytaneion Discovered?‘ (2006): Hesperia 75, 33–81. Schmidt, Martin ‗Some remarks on the semantics of ἄλαμ in Homer‘ in Deger-Jalkotzy and Lemos (2006) 439-447. Schmitt, Carl (2005/1934): Political Theology, Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, Trans. George Schwab, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schmitt, Tassilo ‗Kein König im Palast. Heterodoxe Überlegungen zur politischen und sozialen Ordnung in der mykenischen Zeit‘ (2009): Historische Zeitschrift, Volume 288, No. 2, 281-346. Schmitz, Leonhard (1851): A History of Greece, London. Schoene, Alfred and Petermann, H. (Eds) (1875): Evsebi Chronicorvm, 2 Vols, Berlin: Apud Weidmannos Schweigert, Eugene ‗Greek Inscriptions‘ (1940): Hesperia 9, 325-327. Scullion, Scott ‗Tragic Dates‘ (2002): Classical Quarterly, 52, 81-101. Seaford, Richard ‗Review: Agora and Theatre‘ (1983): The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 33, No. 2, 288-289. 313

Seaford R. (2004): Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy and Tragedy, Cambridge: CUB. Sealey, Raphael (1994): The Justice of the Greeks, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Segerstråle, Ullica (2000): Defenders of the Truth, Oxford: OUP. Seltman, Charles Theodore (1924): Athens: its history and coinage before the Persian invasion, Cambridge: CUP. Service, E. (1971): Primitive Social Organization, 2nd Ed., New York: Random House. Service, Elman, R. (1975): Origins of the state and civilization: The process of cultural evolution, New York: Norton. Seyffert, Oskar (1895): A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, translated, revised and edited by Nettleship, Henry and Sandys, J. E., London and New York: Macmillan and Company. Shapiro, H.A. (1989): Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Maine. Shear, Leslie T ‗The Athenian Agora Excavations of 1970‘ (1971): Hesperia, Vol. 40, No. 3. Shear T.L. ‗Tyrants and Buildings in Archaic Athens‘ Childs, W.A.P. (Ed.) (1978): Athens Comes of Age. From Solon to Salamis, Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press, 1-19. Shear, T. Leslie ‗Ἱζνλόκνπο η‘ Ἀζήλαο ἐπνηεζάηελ: The Agora and the Democracy‖ in Coulson, W.D.E., Palagia, O., Shear, T.L. Jr, Shapiro, H.A., and Frost, F.J. (Eds) (1992): The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, Oxford: Oxbow, 225-248. Shear T.L. ‗The Persian Destruction of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits‘ (1993): Hesperia 62, 383-482. Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. ‗Mycenaean Society‘ in Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies (Eds) (2008): Chapter 5 (116-158). Sherratt, S. ‗Potemkin Palaces and Route-Based Economies‘ in Voutsaki, S. and Killen, J. (Eds) (2001): Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean palace States, Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 214-238. Shipton, Kirsty (2000): Leasing and Lending, The Cash Economy in Fourth Century Athens, London: Institute of ‗Classical Studies, University of London. Shorey, Paul ‗The So-Called ―Archon Basileus‖ and Plato Menexenus 238D‘ (1910): Classical Philology, Vol. 5 No. 3., 361-362. 314

Sickinger, James, P. (1999): Public Records & Archives Classical Athens, Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press. Simon, Erika ‗Bin Anthesterien – Skyphos Des Polygnotos‘ (1963): Antike Kunst 6, 6-22. Simon, E. (1980): Götter der Griechen, München: Hirmer Verlag.. Simon, E. (1983) Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary, Madison. Singor, H.W. ‗The Military Side of the Peisistratean Tyranny‖ in Sancisi-Weerdenburg (2000) 107-129. Slatkin, Laura M. ‗Athene Ἀζήλε or Ἀζεαηε‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 109-112. Small, David, B. ‗An Archaeology of Democracy?‘ in Morris and Raaflaub (1997) 217-227. Small, David, B.‘A Democracy of Archaeologies ( A Reply to Ian Morris)‘ in Morris and Raaflaub (1997) 241-246. Smith, Herbert Weir (1926): Aeschylus, Two Volumes, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Smith, Jonathan, Z. (1982): Imagining Religion From Babylon to Jonestown, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, Jonathan, Z. ‗Religion, Religions, Religious‘ in Taylor, Mark, C. (1998): Critical Terms for Religious Studies, London: University of Chicago Press, 269-284. Smith, Sidney ‗The Practice of Kingship in Early Semitic Kingdoms‘ in Hooke, S. H. (Ed.) (1958): Myth Ritual and Kingship, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 22-73. Smith, William (1875): A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London: John Murray. Smith, William (1888): A Smaller History of Greece, London. Snodgrass, A.M. (1977): Archaeology and the rise of the Greek state, Cambridge: CUP. Snodgrass, Anthony (1980): Archaic Greece: the Age of Experiment, Berkeley: University of California Press. Snodgrass, A.M. in Hägg (1983) 167-171. Snodgrass, A.M. ‗The Rise of the polis: the archaeological evidence‘ in Hansen, Mogens Herman (1993): Ancient Greek City State, Historisk-filosofiske, Meddelelser, Vol. 67, Copenhagen, 30-40. Snodgrass, A.M. (2001): The Dark Age of Greece, first published 1971, New York: Routledge. 315

Solders, Severin (1931): Die ausserstädtischen Kulte und die Einigung Attikas, Lund: A.-B. Ph Lindstedt. Solmsen, Friedrich (author) with Merkelbach R. and West, M.L. (Eds) (1990): Theogonia Opera et Dies, Scutum, Fragmenta Selecta, New York, NJ: OUP Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‗Reconstructing Change: Ideology and the Eleusinian Mysteries‘ in Golden, M., and Toohey, P. (Eds) (1997): Inventing Ancient Culture: Historicism, Periodization, and the Ancient World, London: Routledge, 132-164. Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane (2011): Athenian Myths and Festivals, Oxford: OUP. Spiro, Melford E. ‗Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation‘ in Banton, M. (1966): Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London: Tavistock Press, 85-126. Spyropoulos T. and Godart, L. and Sacconi, A. (1978): Les tablettes en linéaire B de Thèbes, Roma. Spyropoulos, T.G. and Chadwick, J. ‗The Thebes tablets II‘ (1975): Supplement to Minos 4. Stahl, Michael and Walter, Uwe ‗Athens‘ in Raaflaub and Wees (2009) 138-161. Starr, Chester G. ‗The Decline of the Early Greek Kings‘ (1961): Historia, Vol. 10, No. 2., 129-138. Starr, Chester G. (1977): The Economic and Social History of Early Greece 800-500 B.C. New York: OUP. Ste. Croix, G.E.M., de. in Harvey, D. and Parker, R. (Eds) (2004): Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays, Oxford, 33-41. Stegmann von Pritzwald, K. (1930): Zur Geschichte de Herrscherbezeichnungen von Homer bis Plato. Ein bedeutungsgeschichtlicher Versuch, Leipzig: C. L. Hirschfeld. Stevenson, Robert (1965): Population and Political Systems in Tropical Africa, New York: Columbia University Press. Stockton, David ‗Basileus. The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece by Robert Drews‘ (1985): The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 35, No. 2, 418. Stoddart, S., and Whitley, J. ‗The Social Context of Literacy in Archaic Greece and Etruria‘ (1988): Antiquity 62, 761-772. Stroud, Ronald S. ‗The Athenian Grain-Tax Law‘ (1998): Hesperia, Supplement 19. 316

Strasburger, Hermann ‗Der soziologische Aspekt der homerischen Epen‘(1953): Gymnasium 60, 97-114. Strassler, Robert, B. (1996) The Landmark Thucydides, Revised Edition of the Richard Crawley translation, New York: Free Press. Strayer, Joseph, R. (1970): On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Stroud, Ronald S. (1968): Drakon‘s Law on Homicide, Berkeley: University of California Press. Stroud, R., ‗The Athenian Grain Tax Law of 374/3 B.C.‘ (1998): Hesperia Supplement 29, Princeton NJ: American School of Classical Studied at Athens. Stubbings, Frank H. ‗The Expansion of the Mycenaean Civilization‘ (1975): Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 2, 2nd edition, 165-187. Sumner Maine, H. (2005 and 1875): Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, London: Elibron Classics. Sumner, G.V. ‗Notes on Chronological Problems in the Aristotelian ἈΘΖΝΑΗΩΝ ΠΟΛΗΣΔΗΑ‘(1961): The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Volume 11, No 1, 31-54. Sweeney, Emmet (2009): Greek Chronology in Chaos: Gods, Heroes and Tyrants, New York: Algora Publishing. Tandy, David W. (1997): Warriors into Traders, Berkeley: University of California Press. Taylour, Lord William (1983): The Mycenaeans, London: Thames and Hudson Taylour, Lord William and Chadwick, John (2004): Mycenaeans, revised 1983 edition, London: The Folio Society. Thalmann, William, G. (1998): The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations of Class in the Odyssey, Ithaca. Themelis, Petros G. ‗An 8th century goldsmiths‘ workshop at Eretria‘ in Hägg (1983) 157-165. Thomas, C.G. ‗Homer and the Polis‘ (1966): La Parola del Passato, 21, 1-14. Thomas, C.G. ‗A Mycenaean Hegemony? A Reconsideration‘ (1970): Journal of Hellenic Studies 90, 184-192. Thomas, Carol G. ‗The Nature of Mycenaean Kingship‘ (1976): Studi micenei egeo-anatolici 7, 93-116. 317

Thomas, C.G. ‗Basileus: The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece by Robert Drews‘ (1983) The American Historical Review, Vol. 88, No. 5, 1251. Thomas, Carol G. Wedde, Michael (2001): Aegaeum 22, 3-15. Thomas, R. (1992): Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Cambridge: CUP. Thompson, H. ‗Athens Faces Adversity‘ (1981): Hesperia 50, 343-55. Thompson, H. ‗The Pnyx in Models‘ (1982): Hesperia Supplement 19, Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History, and Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool, 133-147. Thompson, H.A. and Wycherley, R.E. ‗The Agora of Athens‘ (1972): The Athenian Agora XIV, Princeton NJ: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.. Thompson, Homer, M. ‗Buildings on the West Side of the Agora‘ (1937): Hesperia, Vol. 6, No. 1, the American Excavations in the Athenian Agora: Eleventh Report. Tierney, Brian (Ed.), (1983): The Middle Ages, Vol. I: Sources of Medieval History, 4th ed., New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Tilly, Charles (1990): Coercion, Capital and European States, Oxford: Blackwell. Toepffer, Johannes (2010): Attische Genealogie, reproduction of 1889 edition, Charleston: Nabu Press Travlos, J., (1971): Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London: Thames and Hudson. Treston, Hubert Joseph (1923): Poine: A Study in Ancient Greek Blood Vengeance, London: Longmans. Trevett, Jeremy (1992): Apollodoros The Son of Pasion, Oxford: OUP. Trigger, Bruce G. (1989): A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge. CUP. Trigger, B. (2003): Understanding Early Civilizations, Cambridge. Tsountas, C.D. and Manatt J.I. (1897): The Mycenaean Age: A Study of the Monuments and Culture of Pre-Homeric Greece, London: Macmillan. Valmin N. ‗Die Zeus-Stoa in der Agora von Athen‘ (1933-1934): Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, Arsberattelse, 1-7. Van Der Vinn, J.P.A. ‗Coins in Athens at the time of Peisistratos‘ in Sancisi-Weerdenburg (2000) 147-153. Ventris, Michael and Chadwick, John (1973): Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: CUP. 318

Versnel, H.S. (1993): Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vince, C.A. and Vince, J.H. (1926): Demosthenes with an English translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Viviers, D. ‗Thésée l'Athénien. À propos de quelques ouvrages récents‘ (1993): L'Antiquité Classique 62, 239-245. Voemel, Johannes Theodorus (Ed) (1859): Demosthenis Opera, Paris: F. Didot. Voland, Eckart and Schiefenhövel, Wulf (Eds) (2009): The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behaviour, Heidelberg: C Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Von Steuben, H. ‗Die Agora des Kleisthenes – Zeugnis eines radikalen Wandels? ‘ in Schuller, W., Hoepfner, W., Schwandner E.L. (Eds) (1989): Demokratie und Architektur, München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 81-87. Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich ―Die lebenslänglichen Archonten Athens‖ (1898): Hermes, Volume 33, 125. Wade-Gery, H.T. ‗Eupatridae, Archons, and Areopagus‘ (1931): Classical Quarterly 25, 9-10 Waissglas A.A.J. ‗Demonax ΒΑ΢ΗΛΔΤ΢ ΜΑΝΣΗΝΔΩΝ‘ (1956): American Journal of Philology 77, No 2, 167-176. Walbank, Michael B. ‗Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part I‘ (1983a): Hesperia, Vol. 52, No. 1, 100-135. Walbank, Michael B. ‗Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part II‘ (1983b): Hesperia, Vol. 52, No. 2, 177-199. Walbank, Michael B. ‗Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part III‘ (1983c): Hesperia, Vol. 52, No. 2, 200-206. Walbank, Michael B. ‗Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part IV‘ (1983d): Hesperia, Vol. 52, No. 2, 207-231. Walbank, Michael B. ‗Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part V‘ (1983e): Hesperia, Vol. 53, No. 3, 361-368. Walbank, Michael B. ‗Leases of Public Lands‘ in Lalonde, Langdon and Walbank (1991) 145- 207. Walker, Henry, J. (1995): Theseus & Athens, New York: OUP. 319

Wallace, Robert W. (1989): The Areopagus Council to 307 B.C.E. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wallace, Robert W., ‗―Listening to‖ the archai in democratic Athens‘(2005): Symposion 2001, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 147-157. Wallinger, H.T. (1993): Ships and Sea-Power before the Great Persian War, Mnemosyne Supplementary Volume 121. Walter, O. ‗Zeus und Konigshalle der Athener Agora‘ (1937): Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 30, 95-100. Waltzer, Michael (1974) Regicide and Revolution – Speeches at the Trial of Louis XVI, trans. Marian Rothstein, London: CUP. Watson, P. and Fotiadis M. ‗The Razor‘s edge: Symbolic-Structuralist Archaeology and the Expansion of Archaeological Inference‘ (1990): American Anthropologist 92, 613-629. Weber, Max (1978): Economy and Society, 5th edition, Berkeley: University of California Press. Wees, Hans van (1992): Status Warriors, Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Wees, Hans van ‗The Economy‘ in Raaflaub and Wees (2009) 445-467. Wees, Hans van ‗Kingship‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 436-438. Weinrich, Harald (1966): Linguistik de Lüge, Heidelberg: C. H. Beck. Weller, Charles Heald (1913): Athens and its Monuments, New York: Macmillan. Welwei, Karl-Wilhelm (1992): ATHEN: vom neolithischen Siedlungsplatz zur archäischen Groβpolis, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Wesolowski, Deanna, L. ‗Feasting at Nestor‘s Palace at Pylos‘ (2006): Nebraska Anthropologist, Paper 26, Nebraska: University of Nebraska. West, M.L. (1985): The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, Origins, Oxford: OUP. West, M.L. (1997): The East Face of Helicon, West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford: OUP. West, Martin, L. ‗Date of Homer‘ in Finkelberg (2011a) 197-198. West Martin, L. ‗Homeric Question‘ in Finkelberg (2011b) 362-264. 320

Wheeler, J.R. ‗An Attic Decree, the Sanctuary of Kodros‘ (1887): American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of Fine Arts, Volume 3, Number 1/2, 38-49. White, Leslie A. (2007): The Evolution of Culture, originally published 1959, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press White, M.E. ‗Hippias and the Athenian Archon list‘ in Evans J. A. S. (Ed.) (1974): Polis and Imperium, Toronto: Edgar Kent Inc., 81-95. Whitehead, Alfred North, (1978): Process and Reality, Corrected Edition by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne, New York: Free Press. Whitley, J. ‗Literacy and Lawmaking: The Case of Archaic Crete‘ in Fisher, N. R. E. and Wees, Hans, van (Eds) (1998): Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, London: Duckworth. Wiener, Malcolm H. ‗Homer and History: Old Questions, New Evidence‘ (2007): Aegaeum, Volume 28, 3-33. Wiener, Malcolm H. ‗Mycenae‘ in Finkelberg (2011) 535-538. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von (1893): Aristoteles und Athen, Berlin: Weidmännische Buchhandlung. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von ‗Die lebenslänglichen Archonten Athens‘ (1898): Hermes 23, 119-129. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich Von (1956): Der Glaube Der Hellenen, Basel: Benno Schwabe & Co. Wilhelm, A. (1974): Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Vol. 2, Leipzig: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Williams, Arden Lorraine (2002): Sacred Land in Classical Athens, Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia. Wilson, John-Paul ‗Literacy‘ in Raaflaub and van Wees (2009) 543-563. Wittgenstein (1979): Remarks on Frazer‘s Golden Bough, translation A. C. Miles, revised by R. Rhees, Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press. Woolf, Virginia (1974): The Death of the Moth and Other Essays, San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company. 321

Wright, H. ‗Prestate Political Formations‘ in Earle, T. (Ed.) (1984): On the Evolution of Complex Societies, Malibu: Undena Publications. Wright, James C. ‗From Chief to King in Mycenaean Society‘ (1995): Aegaeum 11, 63-80. Wright, Thomas and Halliwell, James Orchard (1845): Reliquiæ Antiquæ, London: J. R. Smith. Wrigley, E.A., (1969): Population and History, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Wyatt, William F., ‗Dialect and Ethnic Groups in Herodotus‘ in Strassler, Robert, B. (2007): The Landmark Herodotus, New York: Random House, 781-785. Wycherley, R.E. ‗Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia‘ (1957): The Athenian Agora III, Princeton NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Wycherley, R.E. ‗Lenaion‘ (1965): Hesperia, 72-76. Wycherley, R.E. ‗St Paul at Athens‘ (1968): Journal of New Testament Studies 19, 619-621. Wycherley, R.E. (1978): Stones of Athens, Cambridge MA: Princeton University Press. Wyse, W. (1895): Classical Review 5, 234. Yamagata Naoko ‗ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο in Homer‘ (1997): The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 1, 1-14 Yntema, Hessel E. ‗The Historic Bases of Private International Law’ (1953) American Journal of Comparative Law, 297-317. Yoffee, Norman and Sherratt Andrew (Eds) (1993): Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, Cambridge: CUP. Joffee, Norman (2005): Myths of the Archaic State, Cambridge: CUP. Joffee, Norman (2007): Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research, Tucson: University of Arizona Press Young, R.S. ‗Late geometric graves and a seventh century well in the Agora‘ (1939): Hesperia Supplement 2, Princeton NJ: American School of Classical Studies.

322

323

GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES

Α ἄξρνληεο 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 139, 144 ἄγνο 30 145, 223, 241, 250 ἀγξόηεξνο 104 ἄξρνληεο δηὰ βίνπ 50, 52, 53, 54, 55 ἄγρνο 30 76 ἄγσ 30 ἄξρσ 30 ἀγώλ 30 ἄξρσλ 8, 89, 104, 166, 204, 219, 223 ἀδηθέσ 168 224, 225, 235 ἀζέκηζηνο 85 ἄξρσλ ἐπώλπκνο 223 Ἀζελαίνηο ηὴλ γῆλ 194 άζγνο 30 Ἀζελαίσλ ἐπὶ γᾶλ 194 ἀζέβεηα 260, 261, 262 Ἀζελαίσλ πνιηηεία 149 ἀζεβέσ 168 αἱ ἀξραί 223, 224 ἀζηπ-άλαμ 47, 70 αἰδένκαη 127 Ἀηζίο 52 ἄιγνο 30 αὐηόρζνλνο 50 Ἀιθίλνε θξεῖνλ 144 αὐηόρζσλ 87 ἀλαγξ̣αθε̑ο ην̑λ λόκνλ 153 ἀθ’ ἑζηίαο 257 ἀλαγξάθσ 243, 245 ἀθξήησξ 85 ἀλαθύθισζηο 87 ἄρνληεο δεθαεηεῖο 53, 54, 55 ἄλαμ 34, 45, 47, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 74, 75, 80 B ἄλαμ ὰλδξ῵λ 47 βαζηιίδεο 164 ἄλαζζα 74 ἀλάζζσ 83 Γ ἀλέζηηνο 85 γῇ ηῇ Ἀζελαίσλ 194 ἀλόζηνλ 132 γῆλ ηὴλ Ἀηηηθὴλ 194 Ἀπαξραί 258, 259 γῆο Ἀζελαίσλ 194 ἄπεδνλ 193 γῆο ηῆο Ἀζελαίσλ 194 ἀπόξξεηνο 255 ἀπνηέκλσ 200 Δ ἀξγόο 30 δαηκόληνλ 130, 131, 133 ἀξηζηείαη 64 δῆκνο 84, 224, 248 ἀξραία πνιηηεία 88, 89, 104 δηὰ βίνπ 50, 144, 146 ἀξρηζέσξνο 240 δηαδηθάδεη . . . ὑπὲξ η῵λ ἱεξ῵λ 256 324

δηαηίζεκη 249 εὐζέβεηα 129, 130, 132 δίθαη ἀπὸ ζπκβόισλ 259 εὐζεβέσ 132 δηνηθεῖλ 89, 102 εὐζεβήο 128, 132, 133 δηνηθέσ 102, 249, 256 ἐθέηαη 235 δηνίθεζηο 102 ἐρζξόο 132 δηθπήο 50 δηῴθεη 102 Ζ Ζεύο Πνιηεύο 101 Ε ζηέθαλνο 164 ἐάλ ηηο αἰηηᾶηαη hὸο 155 ἐγθύθιηνο 224 Η εἰζαγγέιισ 160 ἡ ἀξρή 223 εἰζάγεη δ’ ὁ βαζηιεύο 235 ἢ ἄξρσλ ἢ ἰδηώηεο 224 εἰζάγσ 264 ᾐδνῦλην 127 εἰζθέξσ 243 ἐθ ηῆο θπιῆο ὅιεο 236 Θ ἐθ η῵λ βαζηιηθ῵λ 157 ζεῖα 132 ἐιεπζεξία 214 ζεῖνο 132, 133 ἐλ ἄζηεη 117 ζενζεβήο 128 ἐλ δηθαζηεξίῳ κόλνλ 223, 238 ζξεζθεία 128, 132 ἔλεθα 29 ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο 223, 242 Θ Ἐλλεάθξνπλνο 193 ἰεξὰ ὀξγάο 246 Ἐμεθεζηίδεο 265 ἱεξόο 131-132 ἑνξηή 100 ἱεξεῖο 225 ἐπεζηάηνπλ 138 Ἵππο, Ῥεγῖλνο 150 ἐπηβνιὰο ἐπηβάιιεηλ 250 ἰζνλνκία 214 ἐπίζεηνη ἑνξηαί 100 ίζηνξίε 212 ἐπηκειένκαη 168, 249 ἶθη ἀλάζζεηλ 83 ἐπηκειεηνῦ 237 Ἰθη-άλαζζα 47, 70 ἐπηώςαην 257 Ἑξκαῖ 169 Κ Ἐξρηά 266 θαζ’ ὅ ηη ἄλ ηῶ δήκῳ δνθῇ 237 Ἐξρηεύο 266 θαὶ πάιηλ ἐλ δηθαζηεξίῳ 237 εὐζύλνη 239 θαὶ ηὰ πνιέκηα 241, 242 εὐζεβείᾳ 132 θαὶ ηὰο πξὸο ηὸλ πόιεκνλ ἁπάζαο 237 325

θαθνῦξγνη 234 ὀξγάο 200 θαινπκέλελ βαζηιείαλ 204 ὅζηνο 130, 132, 133 θαηὰ κέξνο ἐμ ἑθάζηεο θπιῆο 223, 237 ὀζρνθόξηα 240 θαηὰ ηὰ πάηξηα 100 θαηὰ ηὰο ζπλγξαθὰο 157 Π θαηαγειάσ 132 παιαηόο 29 θαηαιύσ 244 πᾶο 29, 261 θαηαξάηνπο Μεγαξέαο 200 παηξηθαὶ βαζηιεῖαη 85, 86, 87 θήξπθεο 225 πάηξηνο 89, 90, 100, 103, 121 θνηλσλία 219 πάηξηνη ζπζίαη 104 θνηλσλνὶ ηῆο κηᾶο πόιεσο 220 πέκπσ 249 Κξαλαόο 52 πεξὶ ηὴλ ἀθξόπνιηλ 193 Κξεηηρόλ 164 πνηκὴλ ια῵λ 47 πνιέκαξρνο 89, 102 Λ πνιέκηνη 233 ιερεζηξσηεξίσλ 56 πόιηο 85, 220 ιέρνο ζηνξέζαη 56 πνιηηεία 218, 219, 220, 231 ιῆλαη 117 πξπηάλεηο 163 ιελνί 117 Σ Μ ζθῆπηξνλ 45 καιαθόο 91 ζηνξέλλπκη 56 κεηὰ 89, 152, 237, 242, 248, 249, 252 ζηνξέζαη 56 κία πόιηο 220 ζπγγξαθαί 158 κίζζσζηο 157, 243 ζπγγξαθή 158 κνλαξρία 65, 66, 68 ζύκβνια 259 ζύκκεημηο 104, 108, 112 Ν Νηθνθξάηεο 265 Τ λόκηκνο 129 ηὰ ἀηηηθά 117 ηὰ ἐπίζεηα 100 Ο ηακίνπ ζηξαηησηηθ῵λ 237 νἱ ἀξραῖνη 99, 100, 102 ηάμηο 220, 221 νἱ ἐλλέα ἄξρνληεο 139, 140, 223 ηέκελνο 33, 157, 158 νἳ ζπζίαο ηέ ηηλαο ζύνπζη 241 ηεηξάπνιηο 198 νἱ πάηξηνη 100, 102, 103, 104, 121 ηίζεκη 249, 250 326

ηὸλ αὐηὸρεξ θηὲλαλη’ 155 Φηινζύηεο 129 ηνῦ η῵λ θξελ῵λ 237 θπινβαζηιεῖο 90, 157 η῵λ παηξίσλ 89, 102, 107 Φ Υ ρνξεγνί 225 ὑπαίζξηνη 235 ρζπλγξαθαί 158 ὑπεξέρσ 87 ὑπὸ ηὸλ Ὑκεζζὸλ 193 Ω ὑπνκλήκαηα 17 ὦ ἄλδξεο Ἀζελαῖνη 130, 194 ὡο δ’ ἔπνο εἰπεῖλ 102, 107, 113, 248 Φ 256 θεύγνληεο 233 ᾠθνδόκεηαη 203

327

EPIGRAPHY

Agora XVI 56 242, 252, 257 IG I3 4 137 Agora XVI 72. 258 IG I3 32 159 IG I3 78 159, 160 IG II2 43 224 IG I3 84 158, 160, 246 IG II2 47 258 IG I3 104 154, 193 IG I2 115 202 IG 13 231 119 IG II2 204 200, 246, 247 IG 13 232 119 IG II2 334 217, 243 IG I3 240 137 IG I2 911 152 IG I3 433 152 IG II2 1230 237, 264 IG I3 501 210 IG II2 1629 224 IG I3 607 52 IG II2 1635 261 IG I3 1052 105 IG II2 1672 118 IG I3 1384 152 IG II2 1903 266 IG II2 2130 107 SEG 18.13/50 243 SEG 19.133 242, 265 SEG 32.240 265

SEG 40.20 242

328

329

ANCIENT AUTHORS

Aelian On the Choreutes 6.42 156 Varia Historia 8.5 54 Apollodorus Varia Historia 9.25 164 Bibliotheca Aeschines 3.14.1 51 Against Timarchus 3.14.6 52 1.14 133 Aristophanes 1.158 236 Acharnians 1.182 55 1222-1224 117 1.19 136 (Scholion on 1224-1225) 117 1.213 132 Birds Against Ctesiphon 580-588 63, 64 3.14 224 520 125 3.185 80 831-2 193 3.21 169 897 118 3.27 250 1727-1730 166 3.52 262 Clouds Aeschylus 608-626 89 Eumenides 984-985 101 254-270 129 Frogs 973-5. 205 479c 1117 Suppliant Women Lysistrata 704-705 129 481-3 193 Agammenon Thesmophoriazusae 114-115 64 730 164 Andokides Aristotle On the Mysteries Nicomachean Ethics 1.115-16 258 1122b line 20 133 1.83 154 Politics 1.73, 76, 80 156 1252b 87 Against Alciabades 1252b15-1253a16 85 4.14 204 1253a5-6 85 Androtion 1259b 76 33a 136 1273b 188 Antiphon 1274a3-5 210 330

1274b38 220 3.5 137, 202, 108, 139 1278b8-10 220 3.6 136 1279a22-b10 227 4.3 220 1285b.1 88 6.8 102 1285b 94 7.1 138, 205 1285b.1 86 7.3 138, 139 1285b.20-25 86 7.4 202 1285b.24-25 67 8.1-2 188 1289a15-18 220 16.2. 163 1289a18-22 221 21.6 100 1295a40 220 27.2 102 1297b535 229 29.5 241 1299a 262 37.1 220 1299a25 221 38.2 220 1290a7-8 220 41.3 63 1299a15 222, 225 43.4 239 1299a25 225 47.1 233, 250 1310b1-28 86 47.4 157, 243- 248, 256, 259, 260 1310b25-35 86 49.4 233, 250, 256 1319b 262 54.5 224 1320a 133 55.1-5 224 1322b 262 56.1 224 1322b.1.26-28 103 57.1 118, 222, 102, 249 Rhetoric 57.4 156, 264 3.1404a 18 58.1 103 1299.30 222 62(2-3) 138, 240 1335b.36-7 18 chapter 41 90 Athenaeus Chapters 47 and 57 234 Deinosophists Chapters 55 and 56 236 4.154 94 column 33 at line 28 236 6.234F 161 Cicero 6.235B-D 160 De Officiis II, 51 18 6.235D 105 De re publica 1.45 19 Athenaion Politeia Clement of Alexandria 3.3 90, 102, 118 Protrepticus 7.73.3 79 3.4.3 89 331

Contest of Homer and Hesiod Against Evergus and Mnesibulus 315 79 47.26 138 Demosthenes 47.68-71 258 Third Philippic 47.69-70 264 9.1-5 18 On the trierarchic Crown Answer to Philip's Letter 51.17 18 11.16 133 Against Eubulides On Organization 57.4 16 13.32 200 57.7 136 On the Crown Against Theocrines 18.112 136 58.32 236 On the Embassy 58.40-43 18 19.70 129, 133 Funeral fragment 19.255 50 60.28 195 19.281 261 Demosthenes (Apollodoros) Against Leptines Against Neaira 20.27; 20.28 136 59.72 266 Against Meidias 59.74 80, 108, 195 21.26 262 59.75 195 21.150 132 59.78 255 21.178 236 59.80 138 Against Androtion 59.79-80 255 22.27 262 59.79-83 122 Against Aristocrates 59.80 136 23.60 264 59.81 261 23.62 224 59.82 261, 267 23.78 132 59.92 136 Against Timocrates 59.116 261 24.20; 24.150 136 Dio Chrysostom 24.22 253 45.13 195 Against Aphobus I Diodoros Siculus 27.59 157 Bibliotheke Against Lacritus 8.30 94 35.48 262 9.21 98 For Phormio Diogenes Laertius 36.7 157 1.47 193 332

1.50 205 58 § 1 241 Diogenianus, Herodotus 2.99 148 1.59 224 Dionysius 1.59.5 212 The Roman Antiquities 1.60.4 212 1.71.5 55 1.63.2 212 4.74 95 1.86 128 4.74.4 95 1.181-182 166 5.1 95 2.18 128 7.3 142 2.37 128 75.3 55 3.38.1 132 Etymologicum Magnum 4.161 94 227.35 s.v. gerairai 257 5.64 78 Eupolis 5.65.3 53, 85 1fragment 17 164 5.65.3-4 164 Euripides 5.74-78 210 Herakleidai 5.76 54 69-71 205 6.137 78 Ion 6.137.2 193 1555 51 7.3 224 Iphigenia 7.10H.3 194 185-296 80 8.70.2 194 1131 1194 Hesiod Suppliants frg. Clement, Protrepticus, 7.73.3 79 403-408 195 frg. Pseudo Plato, Minos, 320d 79 404-410 214 Theogony Eusebius 25-926 52 Chronicles 798 195 80-82 76 Harpokration 80-93 76 s.v. Ἀπόιισλ Παηξῶνο 88 96 79 s.v. ἗ξκαῖ 169 225-247 47, 75 Herakleides 343 76 Epitome 486 79 1-2 90 897 79 3 91 923 79 55 §§ 1, 2, 4, 241 225-247 47 333

926 52 9.63-64 85 985 79 9 63 Works and Days 12.331 80 38-39 63 14.27 76 170 87 15.188 74 203-212 63 16.173-4 80 248-273 63 19 63 654-656 79 19.109-14 75 668 79 20.61 71 Hesychius 20.61 74 s.v. gerarai 257 20.83-84 75 s.v. marriage of Dionysos 108 23.702-5 207 s.v. θπινβαζηιεῖο 122 24.803 75, 76 s.v. βαζηιίδεο 164 450 77 Homer Odyssey Iliad 1.428-31 207 1.178 76 2.231 75 1.237-9 75 3.380 74 1.35; 450 83 3.480 76 2.196 76 4.44 76 2.197 76 4.63-64 75 2.204-206 81 4.63 76 2.445 76 4.621 75 2.553 80 4.691 75 2.8 44 4.770 74 2.98 76 5.9 75 4.327 80 7.49 76 4.338 76 8.382 144 5.464 76 8.41 75 6.235-6 207 6.149 74 6.305 52 6.175 74 6.402-3 75 7.49 76 7.180 74 8.269 74 7.194 73 8.382 144 9.23-9.25 83 11.280 83 9.29-9.49 83 13.194 74 334

15.271-281 260 Panathenaicus 15.533 74 12.126-12.130 195 16.332 74 12.138 220 16.335 75 12.141 18 17.296 74 Against Callimachus 17.303 74 18.5 152, 167 17.318 74 18.48 167 17.416 75 18.59-61 167 19.109-14 75 Lucan 20.112 75 Bis accusatus sive Tribunalia 9 193 21.9 74 Piscator 42 193 22.119 74 Lycurgus Homeric Hymns Against Leocrates to Demeter 1.84-87 54 474- 478 64 1.94 129 149-155 64 Lysias 75 74 Against Andocides 492 74 6.4-6.5 168 to Selene 17 74 6.10 258 to Aphrodite 92 74 The Matter of the Olive Stump Hyginus 7.22 138 Fabulae 164 51 On the Scrutiny of Evandros Hyperides 26.3-4, 6, 8 and 11 138, 168 'against Patrokles' 138 Against Philon In Defence of Euxenippos 235 31 168 Isaeus Pausanias On the Estate of Chiron 1.15.1 138 6.32 258 1.18.2. 105 8.39 258 1.18.3. 105 Isocrates 1.19.5 54 To Nicocles 1.2.6 52 2.6 262 1.20.1 105 Areopagiticus 1.22.3 195 7.29-30 100 1.23.8 80 Helen 1.24.4 101 10.32-10.38 195 1.24.5 52 335

1.26.2 204 Menexenus 1.28.3 78 238d 88 1.3.1-1.3.3 203 Phaedo 1.3.3 54 235d, scholion on 89 1.30.4 194 260a 18 1.39.4 200 325e 136, 138 1.42.1 200 Republic 2.18.7-9 53 6.493a-c 18 3.7.10 194 544c 85 4.5.10 55, 90 Statesman 6, 8.2.1 195 290 c-e 262 7.21 54 290 c-d 125 10.22.3 204 290d 67 Photius 290e 100, 102, 112 Lexicon, Κξεηηρόλ 164 Symposium Phrynicus 188c 129 Eclogue (Rutherford) 202-203 116 208d 91 Plato Plutarch Cratylus Solon 19.4 156 394d 128 Kimon 7.5.l 80 Epinomis Moralia 12.42 104 977e 128 Moralia 862A 121 Euthyphro Roman Questions 63 95 4c 258 Theseus 3b 132 10.3 199 Gorgias 18.1 101 452c-453a 18 20 200 Hippias Major 22.4 101 293a 132 24-25 195 Kritias 24.4 101 110 d-e 193 27.3 101 Laws Pollux 697c 132 Onomasticon 759e 157 4.122 138 Letters 6.35 105 333e 132 7.77 164 336

8.3 105 Theophrastos 8.86 238 5.37 261 8.90 107 16.6 258 8.118 136 Thucidydes 10.128 53 1.8 198 Polyaenus 1.10.1-2 201 Strategems of War 1.13 85 1.21.2 105 1.13.1 85 8.90 116 1.126.8 136 Polybius 2.14-17 198 Histories 2.15 1 199 5, 1-9.9 88 2.15.3 193 6, 4.7-13 88 2.15.4 117 6, 5.4-9.9 77 2.15.5 193 6, 9.9 88 2.15.6 193 Pseudo Plato 2.17 193 Minos 2.34-46 214 320d 79 2.64.3 86 Seyffert, Oskar 3.82.8 132 s.v., Rex Sacrōrum 9 6.54.5 163 Sophocles 6.54.6 162 Oedipus at Colonos 489 193 18.66.3 193 Oedipus Tyrannus 75 Valerius Maximus Strabo Facta 5.3.ext.3 195 Geography Velleius Paterculus 8.6 and 8.7 198 Historiae Romanae 1.8 55 9.1.6 200 Xenophon 9.1.20 199 Agesilaus 3.2 132 Suda Cyropaedia, 3.3.58 128 s.v. ἄπεδνλ 193 Hellenica 1.7.25 132 s.v. ἄξρσλ 104 Memorabilia 1.1.10 129 s.v. Ἵππο, Ῥεγῖλνο 150 1.1.10-1.1.11 132 Synkellos, Georgios On Hunting 1.10 195 Ekloge Chronographias Symposium 1.12 80 251 137

337

GENERAL INDEX

338

Achilles 31, 63, 71, 73, 75 Andokides 120, 154 Acropolis at Athens Andreev, Juri 72, 73, 85 26, 44, 51, 78, 104, 105, 184, 193, 198, 199, 202 Androtion 15, 136, 247 212, 238 Annunciation and Incarnation 112 Acts of the Apostles 169 Anonymous Periegete 195 administrative law 221 Anthesteria 100, 101, 109, 113, 114, 117, 257, 273 Adousios, re. King's Law 157 Anthesterion 107, 109, 111 Aeneas Tacticus 211 Anthropology 18-19, 37, 47, 85-87, 126, 186 Aeschines 80, 136, 169, 218, 224 Antigonos 150, 151 Agamemnon 44, 71, 74, 81, 83 Aphrodite 74, 198 Agamestor 53 apodektai 260 Aglauros Apollodoros 13, 107, 108, 109, 110, 136, 218, 255 sanctuary of 105 266 Agora at Athens 43, 142, 152, 164, 168, 173, 191 Apollodorus 51 202, 204, 205, 206, 107, 241, 242, 243, 250, 252 archaic Roman kings 11 Ahhiyawa 37 archaeology 18-19 Ahura Mazda 66 and Mycenaean 'palaces' 35-36 Aiakos 202 as processualism 37-44 Aigeis 158 and Bronze Age Acropolis at Athens 43-44 Aisimides 53, 55 archheia 207 Aiskhylos 53, 54, 55 archon, ἄξρσλ aisymnetes 179 meaning of in the ancient sources 223-226 Akastos 53, 90, 91 archon list 93, 142, 143, 145, 146, 151, 162, 177 a-ko 30 and date of inception of office of βαζηιεύο 37-44 Alkinous 81, 144 Kreon to Eukleides 162-163 Alkmaion 53, 54 Kreon 146 Alkmeonidai 210 archonship 23, 53, 55, 83, 91, 140-147 alphabetic Greek 27, 29, 30, 31, 33 164, 214, 215, 226 Ama-ushumgal-ana 57 Areopagus Council 96, 121, 136, 137, 140, 209, 235 Amphiktyon 50, 53 255, 262, 267 Anakeion 105 arete 164 Anaximander 87 Ariphron 53 ancestral monarchies 8, 44, 85, 86 aristocracy 71, 85, 87, 185 ancestral sacrifices 89, 106, 120, 234, 249, 256, 261 Aristodemos 9 Anderson, Greg 101, 113, 118, 120, 195, 197, 198 Arkippos 53 201 Arrephoroi 257

339

Artemis Agrotera 121 Evandros and 138 Asklepios 240 festival activity and 251 Asty gate 138 'first fruits' of Elsusis and 258-259 Atana 52 gerarai selction and 257 a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja 35, 52 hearth initiates and 257 Athena 35, 51- 52, 60, 74, 113, 123, 160, 165, 240 hearth initiates selection and 257 251, 257 Herakleides, reference to 241-242 Athenai 51 Herakleion at Kynosarges, decree and 160-161 Athenaioi 52 herald and flute player, maintenance of, and 241 Athenaion Politeia homicide procedure and 263-264 general problems with 15-17 impiety and 261-267 Athenian Grain Tax Law 259 King's Law, reference to 160-161 Athenian Law Code 152-157 leases, references to 157-159, 243-248 Athenian laws legal procedure, role in 259-264 in forensic speeches, whether forgeries 16 'marriage' of Dionysos, role of 104-112, 116-117 Athenian βαζηιεύο, King Archon method of appointment of 236, 188, 109 Against Neaira and 104-112, 116-117, 266-267 Miltiades' as, and herm base 168, 169, 234 ancillary sacred matters and 256-257 mysteries and 118-120, 257-258 and Artemis Agrotera and Enualios 121 oath 238 Lenaia and Anthesteria and 117-118, 257, 258 Onessipos as 150, 151, 168-170 Andokides, eligibilty to be 168 original method of appointment 109 Arrephoroi selection and 257 origins of according to Apollodoros 108 as Oberpriester der Polis 7 origins of according to Ath. Pol. 88-94 Ath. Pol. chapter 57.1 and 251 paradroi and attire 164, 254 Parthenon ionic frieze and 253-254 class drawn from 6, 138, 214, 225 Patrokles as 150, 151, 166-167 comparison with rex sacrorum 9-10, 11-13 pay 241 conceived as a religious office 12-13 Peisistratos and 164-166 cult of Athena Pallenis officials selection 257 Philon as 265 Demosthenic in the Ath. Pol. 234-241 poletai and 157-159 Demosthenic period sources 218-219 Phryνmarchos as 150, 151 Drakon's law and 153-157 power to impose fines and 253 drinking contest and 117, 257, 273 previous scholarship in relation to 6-7 Eleusis decrees, references to 159-160 priesthood disputes and 262-262 Epainetos as 149-151 public ritual, role in 248-249 epigraphical evidence, Demosthenic period 241-243 qualifications 214, 225

340

'religious' role relative to Areopagus 121-122 polical space in archaic 188-212 'religious' role relative to phylobasileis 122 polis development vs monarchy in 182-185 Royal Stoa and 202-207 political propriety in 233-234 Stoa Poikile and 205, 257-258 population in archaic 175, 189-193 'successor of the Bronze Age kings' 60, 273 post-Mycenaen monarchy in 76-79 Theogenes as 104-112, 116-117, 266-267 Prytaneion at 104-106, 202 use and abuse of 272-275 Royal Stoa in 203-206 wife of 12, 58, 97, 104, 107-116, 166, 255, 270 sanctuary of Aglauros at 105 Ἔλδεημηο and 253 separation of powers and 233-234 Πξπηάλεηο and 253 socio-economic complexity in archaic 200-210 Athens state formation and 177-182 Anakeion at 105 Stoa of Zeus in 206 ancestral monarchy at described in Ath. Pol. 88-92 Stoa Poikile in 205, 257 ancestral rites in 100-104 Theseion at 105 Archaic 177 Thesmotheteion in 202 as a legal person 231-232 unification of Attica and 195-198 Baseleion at 105 'wanaktes' and the king lists 50-56 Boukolion at 104-106 whether continuity from Mycenaean 185-188 Bouzygion at 105 athlothetai 224 Bronze Age Acropolis at 43-44 Athmoneis 198 building in archaic 201-207 Atthidographers 136, 142, 148 date of arrival of Dionysos in 113-114 Attica date of inception of mysteries at 118-120 Mycenaean 26-27 Eleusinion in 119 unification 195-198 Epilykeion at 105 Athens and 198-200 external environment in archaic 209-210 Attike ge 199 geographic size in archaic 193-200 Australia 196, 228, 230 Greek renaissance and 172-177 Avesta texts 66 judicial activity in archaic 209-210 Baalism 57 'marriage' of Dionysos in 104-117, 255, 266-267 Bacon, Francis 98 military organization in archaic 209-210 Barceló, Pedro 7 Mycenaean 26-27 Basileion 104, 106 nature of wanax at 44-49 βαζηιεύο, qa-si-re-u, gwasileus Parasition at 105 ἄλαμ in Homer and Hesiod, comparison 73-76 partitioning of monarchy in 92-94 ambiguity of title with respect to king archon 6 Polemarcheion in 202 bee as 63

341

cock as 63 Boiotia 27, 53 constitutional monarch Boiotian squires 15 developed from Homeric βαζηιεύο Bollingbroke 226-227 etymologies 48-49 Bonner and Smith 154, 155, 156 Fάλαμ in Linear B, comparison 32-35 Boserup, Ester 191 grammatical inflection of 27 Boukolion 104-107, 111, 202, 206 hereditary monarchy and boule 138, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 167, 224, 233 highborn leader 62 234, 237, 238, 239, 244, 246, 250, 260, 271 Homeric and Hesiodic meaning 69-76 Bouphonia 101 ‗king‘ 62-63 Bouzygion 104 Linear B derivation 27-32 Bradeen, Donald W. 142, 143 ‗lord‘ Brauron 27, 201 meanings of, and cf. wanax 33-35 Brauronia 241 person deserving of exaltation 64 Bronowski, Jacob 231 polysemic nature of word 64 Bronze Age 12, 42, 113, 195, 273 ‗prince‘ or ‗leader‘ 62 Bucoleum 107 rich would-be oligarch 64 burial data 181 semantic gap cf. Mycenaean meaning 31-32 Athenian 190 shrine lord; chief king; religious head of state 7 Burkert , Walter 10, 51, 101, 106, 107, 113, 114 115 title 8, 9,12, 91, 95-97, 147, 164, 213, 215, 216 117, 172, 176, 272 transcribed gwasileus, for labio-velar sound 30 Byron, Lord George 63 basilinna, see also wife of βαζηιεύο 113, 114, 116 Bury, R. G. 132 Battos 94 Cadoux, T. J. 143, 151 Bausteine, Friederichs 95 Cambridge School 270 Bendix, Ronald 183 Camp, John 42, 43, 44, 160, 193, 198, 201, 205 Bengtson, Hermann 95, 98 206 Bennett, Emmett L. 34, 56 Carlier, Pierre 6, 8, 53, 54, 55, 62, 64, 69, 70, 74 Benveniste, É 48, 69 77, 78, 82, 83, 97, 115, 116, 120, 122, 137, 152 Bernal, Martin 46, 49 161, 168, 188, 218, 271 Bertelli, Sergio 81 Cartledge, Paul 7, 26, 73 Bisitun Inscription 66 Cavanaugh, Maureen, B. 159 Bloch, Herbert 10, 13, 15, 93, 242 Chadwick, John 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 44 45 debate with Oliver re. exēgētai 258 57, 70, 77 Boegehold, Alan L. 241 Chantraine, P. 46, 47, 48 Boersma, Joh S. 164, 201 Theophrastus 195

342

Charax 195 De Sanctis, Gaetano 10, 143, 148, 200 Charmos 150, 151 de Seyssel, Claude 20 chiefdoms 38, 39, 41 dea ex machina Choes 118 Queen of England as 229 choregoi 240 Declaration of the Scottish Convention 228 Christianity 112, 126, 127 decree of Teisamenos 154 Cicero 18, 19, 20, 195 definition City Dionysia 101, 114, 117, 273 need for 19-20 Clinton, Kevin 159, 242, 243, 252, 257 of constitution 226-228 cluster interaction 38 of religion 122-127 cognitive paradigms 125, 231 of state 177-178 complelx numbers 231 of theocratic monarchy 66-68 condign, compensatory and conditioned of κνλαξρία 68-69 Galbraith's forms of political power 226 defixio 125 constitution, πνιηηεία Deger-Jalkotsky, Sigrid 37, 62 meaning of in the ancient sources 219-222 Delos 240, 241 modern definitions 226-228 Delphi 94, 138, 173, 198 fiction of consent in relation to 228-232 Delphic oracle 94, 247 political sovereignty and 232-234 Delphinion 235 separation of powers and 228, 233-234 Demeter 74, 101, 119 Australian 228-229 democracy 15, 88, 114, 187, 215, 216, 232, 233 Corinth 140, 180 demokratia 233 Corinthia 42 Demonax 94 Mycenaean 41 demos 179, 223, 233 corporate political organization 37 Dendra 27 Crete 38, 43, 52, 179, 208 Denning, Lord Alfred 16 crime in ancient Athens 153, 209-210 Derrida, Jacques 126, 127, 231 Cyprus 35, 59 Detienne, Marcel 270 Cypselus 180 Deubner, Ludwig 97, 106, 112, 113, 118, 195, 273 dadouchos 247 Develin, Robert 140, 142, 143, 149, 151, 152, 188 damioi 225 265, 266 as developed from demos 179 digamma 27, 32 Darius 66, 213 Dimini 27, 41, 42 Dark Age 174, 176, 183, 192, 195 dikasterion 210 Darwin, Charles 30 Diognetos 53 de Coulanges, Fustel 9, 179 Dioklos 64

343

Dionysia see 'Lenaia', 'City Dionysia', Lenaion embedded religion 98, 133 Dionysia', 'Great Dionysia' Enualios 104, 121 Dionysos 58, 86, 103-117 Epainetos 93, 149, 150-151 165, 266 Epakreis 198 Dioskouroi 105 Epano Englianos 42 Dipolieia 101, 273 ephetai 155, 156, 263 divine kingship 57-59 Ephorus 94 Egyptian monarchy as 59 Epic Cyclic 73 dokimasia 224, 230 Epilykeion 104, 202 Dolikhos 64 Epilykos 150, 151 Dorians 26, 53 epimeletai 248, 249, 251, 252, 258 Drakon 90, 91, 120, 140, 145, 149, 151, 152, 153 epistatai 118, 159, 248 154, 156, 193, 156, 162, 202 143, 145, 150, 180 Erechtheidai 50 189 Erechtheus 50, 52, 53 Drakon's Law 152-156 Eretria 208, 209 Dreros Erichtheid 52 of Crete 179 Erichtheos 50 Drews, Robert 7, 35, 54, 55, 62, 65, 69 Erichthonios 50, 53 Dumézil, Georges 45, 270 ethnocentrism 127 Dymaia 27 Euboea 191, 209 dynastic monarchy 90, 91 Eucharidēs 150, 152 Dysniketos 265 Euêtheia 123 edict of Antoninus 19 Eumelus 84 Edmonds, John Maxwell 107, 164 Eumolpidai 249, 251, 258 Edmondson, Colin N. 168, 169, 17 Eumolpos 64 Egypt 58, 67, 85, 166 Eupatridai 174 Ehrenberg, Victor 8, 97 Eurymachus 69 eisangelia 221 Eurystheus 39 ekklesia 233, 237, 239, 262 Eusebius 52, 53, 55, 150 Eleusinia 241 euthyna 169, 230, 249 Eleusinion 110, 111 Evandros 125, 156 Eleusis 27, 117, 119, 120, 147, 159, 184, 199, 200 Evans, Nancy 115, 118 201, 202, 258 Exegesis 258 Eleutherai 113, 201 exegetes 10 elitist ideology 180, 212 Exekestides 168, 169, 217, 265

344

Fάλαμ, ἄλαμ grammateus 223, 224 cf. βαζηιεύο in Linear B 32-35 Great Dionysia 240 etymologies 45-48 Greenidge A. H. J. 220, 226, 232, 233, 259 w and Mycenaean ritual 56-60 g asileus - see βαζηιεύο Homeric and Hesiodic meaning 69-76 Gymnasium of Ptolemy 207 cf. βαζηιεύο in Homer and Hesiod 73-76 Hajnal, I. 46, 47

Fαλάθηεη 31 Haliki 27

Fαλάθηεξνο 31 Hall, Jonathan M. 26, 76, 144, 191, 195, 207, 208

Fάλαθηνο 31 Hamel, Debra 108 factional/elite competition 41 Hammer, Dean 84, 188 fasti sacri 137 Hammond, N. G. L. 26, 27, 140, 195, 270 Feaver, Douglas, D. 113, 114, 164, 262 Hansen, Mogens Herman 43, 178, 189, 192, 223 feudalism 81 225, 232, 233, 234 fidelitas 81 Harding, Phillip 53, 193 Finley, M. I. 71, 72, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 92, 93, 94 hassu- and hassa 176, 181, 189, 220, 229, 231, 232, 234 connection with F άλαμ 46 Fletcher, Roland 189 Hauvette-Besnault, Amédée 6, 12 forensic speeches hearth 36, 40, 202, 257 general problems with 17-18 hearth initiates 257 Fowler, Harold North 132 Hecataeus Foxhall, Lyn 185, 191, 201, 209 world map 194 Frankfort, Henri 57, 58, 66, 67, 187, 294 Heisenberg, Werner 14, 124 fratres Arvales 93 Hekataios 193 Frazer, Sir James 8, 67, 68, 77, 84, 95, 270 Hekate 76 Fried, M. H. 37, 38, 77, 85 Helladic Period 26, 35, 38, 39, 40, 173 Friedman, Jonathan 85 Hellanikos 93, 142 Frisk, H. 48 Hellespont 194 Frost, F. J. 195, 200, 210 heilotai 200 Gagarin, Michael 153, 155, 156, 260 Hephaistia 241 Galbraith, John Kenneth 226 Hephaistos 52, 74 Georgiev, Vladimir I. 46 Heracleia 241 German Historical School 196 Herakleion at Kynosarges 161 Gla 27, 40 Herakles 44 globalatinization 127 Hereas 200 Governor-General 228, 229 herms 138, 152, 168, 169, 205, 234, 265

345

herm bases at Royal Stoa site Homer‘s use of ἄλαμ and βαζηιεύο 34 Exekestides 168, 234, 265 problem of corroboration 72 Miltiades 234 problems with use of as an historical source 10 Onesippos 152, 168 references to Potnia 52 Hermippus 94 use of θξείσλ 144 Herter, H. 195, 196 Homeric epic Hesiodic didacticism cf. Hesiodic didacticism 14-15 cf. Homeric epic 14-15 Homeric βαζηιεύο Hesperia, re. the Royal Stoa site 203 as Heerkônig 82 heterarchy 41, 42 homicide, homicide court, jurisdiction 146, 147 hieropoioi 159, 255 152, 153, 155, 156, 209, 235, 259-264 hieros gamos, see also sacred marriage 57 Hooker, J. T. 29, 30, 31, 32, 49, 102 Hignett, C. 16, 144, 195, 232 hoplite 210, 212 hippeis 237 horistai 160 Hippias 142, 143, 150 Houby-Nielsen, Sanne 194, 209 Hippomenes 9, 55 Humphreys, S. C. 92, 101, 104, 106, 113, 114, 125 decennial archon 53 126,165, 187, 188, 259 Hippys of Rhegion 86, 93, 150, 151 Hurwit, Jeffery M. 26, 43, 51, 52 historiography Hymmetos 193 abductive argument 20-22 Hymn to Ishtar 57 applying the general to the particular 176-177 Iakkhos 117, 118 argument from silence, test for 22 ideology 37, 39, 40, 47 Athens/Rome/Athens Feedback Loop 11 Iklaina cultural traditions as preservers of fact 55 recent discovery of Linear B 27 fact vs opinion 16 Impiety 261 Greek historical continuity 26 Indo-European 31, 35, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 70, 72, 179 homonymity 54, 145 270 periodization 26 inter-polity homologies 39 relevant issues w.r.t. political power 65 Ion 51, 90, 92 weight and admissibility in relation to evidence 16 Ionia 124, 172 Hittite 37, 46, 72, 147 Ionian migrations 118 Hobbes, Thomas 84, 85, 132 Ishtar 57 Hocart, A. M. 9, 11, 12, 95, 270 Italian fascism 67 Hölscher, Tonio 184, 201, 206, 274 Ithaca 71, 74, 81 Homer Jacoby, Felix 8, 15, 53, 55, 93, 136, 138, 142, 143 as an historical source 13 144, 145, 151, 200, 258

346

John of Salisbury 81 king as shepherd 81 Politicraticus Book 6 at 2 82 today‘s use of the word 'king' 63-64 Jowett, Benjamin 132 Kleidemos 193 Judeich, Walther 138, 300 Kleidikos 53 Kafka, Franz 230 Kleisthenes 162, 197 kakewe 34 Kleomenes 211, 212 ka-ki-u Knossos 32, 35, 45, 49, 51, 77 a smith/bronze-smith 34 and a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja 51 Kallimachos 164 qa-si-re-u in Linear B tablets found at 32 Kant, Emmanuel 126 Kober, Alice 28 Kapp, Ernst 15, 90, 103, 241, 244, 249, 256 Kodros 53, 54, 55, 91, 159, 246 Kapparis, Konstantinos 107, 109, 116, 236, 266 Koestler, Arthur 230 Karians 199 Kore 101 Kastor ko-re-te-re and Athenian King Lists 52-55 village officials 34 Kastro 27, 42 Kourotrophos 50 Keaney, John J. 15 Kranaa 50 Kekropia 50, 52, 195 Kranaos 45, 47 Kekropidai 50, 51, 52 Krates 105, 160, 257 Kekrops 50, 52, 195 Kreon 23, 135, 136, 143, 144, 145, 146, 162, 172 Kenyon, Sir Frederick 89, 103, 244 Kretan cloak 164, 254 Kerényi, Carl 166 Kunstsprache 14, 73 Kerykes 249, 251 Kyle, Donald G. 272 Kerykes and Eumolpidai 119 Kylon 179, 150, 211 Kharops 48 Kyme 179 Kiapha Thiti 43 Kypselos 86 Kilian, Klaus 26, 36, 37, 38 Kyrene 94 King James the Seventh 228 labio-velars 29, 30 king-men 64 Laconia 27 king's body Laffineur, Robert 36 as harbinger of deity 67 Lalonde, Gerald V. 157, 246, 274 kingship Lampon 160 Wright's definition 38 Langdon, Merle, K. 157, 245, 246, 247, 273 divine 58-59 Lapinkivi, Pirjo 58 priesthood as function of 59 Latte, Kurt 9, 10, 11 as function of priesthood 59 Launderville, Dale 66, 68, 81

347

Lavelle, B. M. 163, 211, 212 Lysias 9, 126, 127, 155, 156, 210 lawagetas, lawage(r)tas 33, 46, 47 MacDowell, Douglas M. 156, 259, 260, 262, 263 lease 157, 158, 159 264 Lefkandi 191, 209 Macurdy, Grace M. 12, 166 Lejeune, M. 31, 33, 46 Magistrate Lenaia 103, 106, 117, 118, 258, 273 as inappropriate translation of archon 219 Lenaia vases 106 Maidment, K. J. 129 Lenaion 106, 107, 249, 251 manteis 125 Lenaion Dionysia 106, 107, 251 Mantineians 94 Lenz, John 6, 33, 37, 176, 181, 182, 192 Marathon 42, 121, 196, 198 Leocratos 53 Marchant, E. C. 128, 130, 132 Lévi-Strauss, Claude 270 Marduk 66 Lewis, C. S. 84 Marinatos, Spyridon, N. 44, 57 Lewis, D. M. 243 'marriage' to Dionysos Liddell and Scott 100, 102, 157, 158 Against Neaira, account of in 104-112 Limnai 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 257 Athenian cf. Oriental Sacred marriage 58 Linear B knowledge of in Athens 112, 255 wanax and gwasileus and 27-35 Lenaia vases, alleged depiction of on 106 syllabary 28 modern scholarship in relation to 114-117 homophony in 28-29 Peisistratos and 164-166 tautology in decipherment 30 βαζηιεύο Theogenes and 266-267 decipherment rules applied w.r.t. βαζηιεύο 29-30 McIlwain, Charles Howard 220, 230 decipherment rules applied w.r.t. Fάλαμ 31-32 Medon 53, 90, 91 problem of generalizing from 49-50 Megakles 53, 151 tablet Tn 316 56 Megara 179, 199, 200, 211 tablets 33 megaron 36, 40 Linforth, Ivan Mortimer 148 occurrence in the Mycenaean 'palaces' 36 literacy 176, 201 Meillet, A. 45, 48 Lithos 206 Melanthid dynasty 53 logistai 239 Melanthos 53 Loraux, Nicole 270 Meltas 9 Lukes, S. 65, 68 Menander 107 Luwian 70 Menandros 265 Lycurgus 204 Menelaion 29, 39, 40 Lydia 165 Menidhi 42 Lydian monarchy 66 Menestheus 80

348

Meritt, Benjamin D. 142, 143, 204, 242 Phaiakian 81 Mesogeioi 185 polis development relative to 182-185 Mesopotamia 58 post-Mycenaean in Athens 76-79 Messenia 27, 76 primi inter pares 68-69 metic 169 theocratic 66-68 metics 110, 192 theological power narrative and 59 metroxenoi 192 Mondi, Robert 80 miasma 260 mondialatinization 127 middling ideology 180, 212 monetization 207, 208 Midea 27 Montesquieu, Charles-Louis 229, 230 military organization Moore, J. M. 103, 244 archaic Atehns 210-212 Morpurgo-Davies, A. 34 Miltiades 142, 234 Morris, Ian 14, 19, 37, 78, 101, 173, 174, 175, 176 Minoan society 38, 40, 43, 51 180, 181, 182 183, 185, 189, 190, 191, 192, 195 reflected in Mycenaean artefacts 39 201, 207 Minos 51 Mumford, Lewis 7 mitochondrial DNA 198 Munn , Mark 66, 79, 115, 125, 163, 165, 194, 213 Momigliano, A. 10 261 monarchy, monarch Murray, Gilbert 123, 124, 125, 130, 132 Ath. Pol. and Athenian ancestral 88-92 Murray, A. T. 129, 130 Athenian βαζηιεύο as vestigial priest-king 94-96 Mussolini 67 awesome common power 84 Mycenae 26, 27, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52 classical Greek theorizing 84-88 57, 70, 101 defined by reference to political power 65-66 Mycenaean Athens 22, 76, 177, 185 definition, need for 62-65 Mycenaean 'palaces' divine 58-59 architectural layout and style of 31 evidence re. Athenian Bronze age 55-56 Mycenaean society 23, 28, 41, 42, 44 Feudal cf. Homeric 81-82 Myes 150, 151 gradual vs. revolutionary overthrow of in Athens 8 Mylonas, G. E. 36, 118, 249, 251, 257, 258, 270 Hesiodic 79-80 Myrsilos 193 Hobbes and 84-85 Mysteries 101, 104, 106, 117, 118, 119, 120, 148 Homeric 80-81 168, 199, 222, 234, 243, 248, 249, 251, 257, 258 idea of extreme decline of Roman 10 273 oriental 56-60 Mytilene 179, 210 partitioning of in Athens 92-94 Nausikaa 74 patriarchal, sacred 67-68 Neaira 87, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 138, 242, 255

349

261, 266 Orchomenos 27, 39, 41 Neils, Jennifer 250 Orgas, sacred Orgas 247 Neleos and Basile 159 Orgygos and Aktaios 50 neo-evolutionist 37 Oropos 199 Neolithic 36, 273 Orwell, Goerge 230 nepotism 234, 265 Osborne, Robin 14, 26, 55, 123, 156, 181, 189, 195 Nestor 80, 285 owl coinage 208

Nikochares 169 pa2-si-re-u 28, 29 nine archons Padgug, Robert A. 103, 118, 119, 195, 200 ancient sources 136-139 Paine, Thomas 227, 228 archon list 145-148 Palace of Nestor 42 areopagus council, membership 136, 138 Palaima, Thomas G. 32, 33, 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 56 59 group references 137-138 70, 72, 75, 77 herald and flute player, maintenance of, and 241 Palladion 235 date of inception 139-145 Palmer, Lionel 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 45, 56, 57 orthodoxy in relaton to original creation of 139-140 58, 59, 101, 102, 113 problems witn orthodox of inception of 141-142 Pamphilos 167 Thesmotheteion and 138, 203 Panathenaia 240, 241, 243, 250, 253, 254, 273 Thucydides reference to re Kylon 144 Panathenaic Way 205 SEG 19.133, the list of 370/369 242, 265 Pandion 200 Nomos Attikis 199 Pandrosos 50 nomothetai 233 pa-ra-jo 29 geometries 216 paramount basileus 88, 89 Numa 8 paramount chief 34 oath stone 44 paramountcy 88 at Royal Stoa site 238 parasites 161, 257, 240, 257 Ober, Josiah 177, 189, 207 parasition 105 ochlocracy 88 paredroi, paredros 169, 204, 224, 234, 239, 248, 249 Odysseus 57, 58, 65, 68, 69, 74, 133 258, 264, 265 oikos 82 Parian Marble Old Babylonian Athenian King Lists and 52-55 Enûma Eliš 66 Thespis and 113-114 Old Oligarch 149 Parke, Victor 204 oligarchy 76, 81, 168 Parker, Robert 89, 100, 101, 104, 109, 111, 113 Olive Oil tablets 56-57, 101 114, 118, 121, 123, 128, 129, 198, 254, 255, 257 Onesippos 23, 141, 150, 152, 168-170 271, 272

350

Parthenon 52, 139, 250, 254 phonemes Parthenon Ionic frieze 253 in Linear B 28 pa-si 29 Phorbas 53 pa-te 29 Phreato 235 Patrokles 135, 138, 150, 152, 166-167, 267 Phrygia 46, 47 patronicium 81 Phryomachos 150, 152 peer polity interaction 38, 39, 40 phylobasileis 105, 156, 235 Pefkakia 27, 42 Pickard-Cambridge, Sir Arthur 106, 107, 117, 118 Peisistratos 16, 86, 101, 114, 142, 150, 151, 162 169, 258, 273 163, 164, 165, 183, 189, 200, 205, 210, 211, 212 Piraeus 138, 167, 241 160, 193, 246, 274 Plataians 136 Pelargikon 148, 180, 230, 254 Plommer, W. H. 54, 145 Pelasgians 193 Pointe Lequin shipwreck 21 Pelasgicon 180 polemarch 89, 91, 92, 121, 140, 142, 149, 150, 202 Pellana 27 210, 224, 243, 261 Peloponnesian war 55 as member of class of Kriegshäuptlinge 88 Penelope 69 described as war archon 88 peplos 116, 240, 253, 256 Polemarcheion 202 peribolos 202 renaming of to Epilykeion 202 perioikoi 200 Polemon 193 Persia 63, 166 poletai 138, 157, 245, 246, 247 Phaiakian monarchy 81 polis 76, 96, 116, 178, 180, 182, 185, 188, 196, 219 Phano 108, 109, 266 233 Phanodemos 93 politeia 13, 15, 205, 206, 207, 218 pharaoh 35, 58 political power as mediator with divinity 59 defined by reference to ‗will‘ 65-66 Pharaonic ma‘at 66 political sovereignty 232 pharmakeia 125 political space 188 Pheidon 86 political theology 60, 75, 76, 89 Pherekles 53 Polyani 207 Pherekydes 53 Polybius 80 Philip of Macedon 258 Polyxenos 64 Philochoros 138, 195, 200, 247 Pomeroy, Sarah B. et al. 96, 275 Philon 217, 265 Pontifex Maximus Phintas 78 cf. rex sacrorum 9-11

351

Popper, Karl 65 Reece, Steve 14 population regina sacrorum of 8th century Athens 78 compared to wife of Athenian βαζηιεύο 12 proportion of wells to burials and 90 reification of archaic Athens 189-193 ‗rule of law‘, ‗sovereignty of law‘, as 233 po-ro-ko-re-te-re re-ke-(e)-to-ro-te-ri-jo 50 as subordinates to the ko-re-te-re 34 relativity 124 Porto Raphti 27 religion post-processualism 37 ancient: range of interpretation problems 56 po-ti-ni-ja/potnia 35, 53 definition 122-127 prestige exchange and acquisition 38 embedded 98, 133 Preuss, K. T. 123 Fάλαμ and 56-60 Priam and Paris 'mondialatinization' of Athenian r. 127-133 meaning in Luwian 70 Renfrew, Colin 38, 39, 174, 185 priesthoods 126, 239, 245 rex 10 priest-king 8, 11 Indo-European origin of word 48 primi inter pares 68, 81, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186,214 rex sacrorum 10, 11, 12, 95 215 definition 9 primogeniture 82 origins of 11 primus absolutus 182 relative to Athenian βαζηιεύο 8-10 Processualism 19, 33, 37, 38, 41 transition of compared with Athenian βαζηιεύο 6 prodikasiai 263 wife of 8 pros têi pulidi 138 Rhodes, P. J. 7, 15, 16, 17, 53, 89, 92, 102, 103, 105 proxenia 112, 133, 136, 137, 140, 153, 158, 159, 203, 205 as developed from xenia 179 208, 219, 232, 242, 244, 245, 249, 256 Prytaneion 36, 104, 105, 106, 147, 202 Robinson, R. 228 Pylos 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45 Romulus 8 49, 53, 56, 70, 76 Rose, Peter 62, 63 date of 40 Rosivach, Vincent J. 100, 122, 222 knowledge of in Classical period 42 Rousseau, J. J. 222 occurrence of qa-si-re-u at 32 Royal Stoa, Stoa Basileios 44, 107, 143, 153, 169 qa-si-re-u, see βαζηιεύο 238, 274 Raaflaub, Kurt 7, 10, 14, 18, 62, 68, 72, 73, 84, 139 date and use of 202-207 177, 182, 189, 206, 210, 212, 213 Ruijgh, C. J. 34, 37, 45, 77 Rackham, H. 103, 131, 133, 244, 245, 248 Runciman, W. G. 140, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 reciprocity 116

352

sacral 3, 59, 272 Snodgrass, Anthony 27, 77, 172, 173, 176, 189 sacral kingship 190 191, 192, 195, 207, 208 and political theology 66 Solon 98, 120, 143, 144, 145, 148, 154, 156, 157 sacred bull 115 162, 163, 181, 183, 193, 202, 205, 208 Sacred Marriage 57, 255 Solon’s law reforms 196 Mesopotamian 57-58 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 116, 120, 253, 254 Sahlins, Marshall 77 sovereignty 226-234 Sakellariou, M. B. 219, 220 Sparta 55, 179 Salamis 199, 201, 241 Spiro, Melford E. 20, 126 Sandys, John Edward 9, 15, 17, 90, 91, 95, 163, 236 Spring Festival 57, 114 241 state Sarkady, János 55, 147, 195 definition 177-182 sceptre 36, 73, 75, 81 formation of in Athens 179-182 Scheidel, W. 189, 190, 191 State Formation 179 Schmalz, Geoffrey C. R. 105, 106 Stoa of Zeus 191, 203, 204, 206 Schmidt, Martin 47, 69, 74, 317 Straits of Gibraltar 194 Schmitt, Tassilo 35 Stroud , R. 153, 156, 202, 258, 259 Schmitz, Leonard 11, 223, 261, 270 Structuralism 128, 270 Schwindelliteratur 14 syllabary 29, 31 secondary state formation 38 Synoikia semantics 7, 69, 222, 317 festival of 195 semele 118 synoikismos 184, 195 separation of powers 229, 233, 234, 259 Tammuz 57 separation of church and state 11 Tarquinius Superbus 9 shahanshah 38 tautology 30, 31, 197 Shear, T. L. 104, 105, 106, 168, 169, 201, 203, 205 Taylour, Lord William 27, 28, 29, 32 265, 273, 274 Telemarchos 260 Sigeum 210 telestai, telestas 28, 33 Simon, Erika 51, 106, 113, 121, 273 te-me-no 33 Singor, H. W. 210 temenos 33, 105, 157, 158, 217 skeptron 80 Teos 166 Sleiden, ÒJohann 20 te-re-ta 28 Smith, Herbert Weir 127-128 Tetrakomoi 198 Smith, Jonathan Z 126, 128 tetrapolis 198 Smith, Sydney 57, 58, 98, 114 Thargelia 105, 224 Smith, William 95 the gerarai 257

353

the King’s Law 160-161 of transition from a last bad king 9 the Kylon affair 136, 139 torch races 3, 106, 234, 249, 250, 256, 261, 272 the New Archaeology 37, 310 triarchy (βαζηιεύο, polemarch and archon) 91, 140 the nine springs 193 tribe-kings 157 Thebes 26, 27, 33, 38, 39, 41, 43, 57 trifunctionality 45 Themistocles 135 Trigger, Bruce 19, 37, 175 Theogenes 217, 242, 261, 266-267 Trikomoi 198 Theoklymenos 260 Triptolemos 64 Theocratic monarchy 66-68 Trojan War 70 theriomorphic Troy 70, 74, 80, 87 re. Mycenaean gods 57 Tsountas, Christos 44 Thersippos 53 tyranny, tyrannos, tyrannis 8, 48, 69, 218, 85, 86 Theseion 104, 207 87 165, 205, 236 Theseus 45, 47, 48, 50, 101, 182, 183, 184, 186, 196 transition from monarchy 86 273 unification of Attica 195-198 as absolute monarch 90 useful fictions 228 provenance of 196-197 Ventris, Michael 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 45, 57 Thesmophoria 273 77 thesmothetes, thesmothetai 89, 140, 148, 152, 179 Vernant, Jean-Pierre 270 223, 236, 237, 238, 239, 142, 149, 150, 258, 259 vestigial priest-king 7, 8, 12, 94, 96 261, 262 Vidal-Naquet, Pierre 270 Thesmotheteion 202 voiced labial 30 Thespieus 53 Volos 27, 42 Thespis 113 von Bertalanffy, Ludwig Thompson, H. A. 203, 205, 274 and the new archaeology 37 Thorikos 27, 42 von Fritz, Kurt 15 Toepffer, Johannes 53-54, 196 Wace, Alan 77 Tolkien, J. R. R. 73 Walbank, Michael B. 105, 157, 246 tomb Walker, Henry J. 196 bee hive, and chamber 26, 27 Wallace, Robert, W. 146, 147, 219 Mycenaean tomb at Athens 27 Walter, Otto 116 tholos 39, 42 wa-na-ka-te 31, 102 warrior 39 wa-na-ka-te wa-no-si-i 102 toponyms 52 wa-na-ka-te-ro 31 topos wa-na-ka-to 31 of the lawgiver 94 wa-na-ke-te 31

354

wanaktes 28, 32, 50, 56 William of Ockham wanax - see Fάλαμ Dialogues, III, II. iii, 19 98 wa-na-so-i 102 Woolf, Virginia 19 Wappenmünzen 207, 208 Wright, James 38, 39, 40, 41, 85 Wees, Hans Van 21, 62, 207, 208, 209 Wycherley, R. E. 107, 169, 193, 203, 205, 274 Welwei, Karl-Wilhelm 26, 163, 195 Xanthios of Boiotia 53 West, Martin 15 xenia 179 wife of the βαζηιεύο xresmologos 125, 160 and ritual marriage 12, 58, 97, 104, 107-116, 166 Yoffee, Norman 19, 37, 85 255, 270 Zeus, 57, 73, 75, 76, 79, 83, 107, 203, 204, 206 title 113, 114, 116, 164, 165 237, 254 Wilamowitz, Ulrich von 109, 121, 132, 143 zoomorphic myth 115