L’Antiquité Classique

THE ARCHON YEAR OF ALKMEON AND ISAGORAS' COUNCIL OF 300

Author(s): P. J. Bicknell
Source: L’Antiquité Classique, T. 54 (1985), pp. 76-90
Published by: L’Antiquité Classique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41657154 .
Accessed: 17/07/2013 17:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

L’Antiquité Classique is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to L’Antiquité
Classique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHON YEAR OF ALKMEON
AND ISAGORAS' COUNCIL OF 300

A. The archon year of alkmeon

5
Accordingto Pollux ( Onomastikon > VIII, 110) enl AXx/Ltaiœvoç òêxa
èyévovto. The subject is the Athenian .
phylai Alkmeon,then, was the
eponymous archon at Athens when Kleisthenes' reorganisationof the
Athenian citizen body became operative1.Wrote Cadoux2 : «it is clear
that the operationof the new constitution, which involvedthe systemof
TtQvráveiç who divided up the year between them, would have to wait
untilthebeginningof a new officialyear».He goes on to suggestthatAlk-
meon was eponymous archon in this firstcomplete year of the new
regime. This cannot be right.As Eliot3 clearly saw, Kleisthenes' new
ordermust have come into effectpriorto the beginningof the firstcom-
plete officialyear on his system.If that firstcompleteofficialyear was
yearx, thenthe Kleistheneanreorganisation musthave begun to function
the end of x - 1 for the electionin thatyearof the coun-
by year allowing
cil of 500 togetherwith all the otherofficebearersof year x. If we take
Pollux at face value thenAlkmeonshould be the archonof whateveryear
-
correspondsto x 1, not the year,the firstcompleteofficialyear under
the Kleistheneansystem,correspondingto x.
What was the year of Alkmeon's archonship? 507/6 has widely4,
althoughfar fromunanimously5,won support as the most likelycandi-

1 The«normal as C. W.J.Eliot(Coastal Demes

interpretation» ofAttika, of
University
Toronto Press,1962,note18atpp.146-7) putsit.Pollux'sexpressionisquiteincompatible
withratificationofKleisthenes,
tribalreforminAlkmeon's year.
Atp. 114ofhisseminal articleTheAthenianArchons from KreontoHypsichides
[J.H.S.,
68 (1948),pp.70-123].
3 See Eliot,loc.cit.
4 See,forexample, Cadoux,loc.cit.and,morerecently. DavidJ.McCargarat Rhein.
Mus.y119(1976),p. 322andA. Andrewes at C.Q.,n.s.,27 (1977),p. 247.
Seeforexample, R. Sealey,Essays inGreek , NewYork,1966,p. 30andEliot,
History
loc.cit.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHONYEAROF ALKMEON 77

date. In its favourlittlemorehas been adduced hithertothanits proximity

to the archon year, 508/7,of Isagoras, whose power strugglewith Kleis-
thenesafterthe fall of the Peisistratidtyrannyin 511/10was the context
of the latter's reforms.The followingself-containedargument6,at no
point contingenton the date of Isagoras' year of officeor relatedchrono-
logical indications7,is intendedto upgrade the probabilityof 507/6 to
somethingapproachingcertainty.If the argumentis valid, then507/6,the
archonyear of Alkmeonshould become the fulcrumof the chronologyof
Kleisthenes' reformsand theirambience ratherthan a ratheruncertain,
derived datum.
At AthenaionPoliteia(henceforward A.P.), 26, 2, as the textstands,the
writerappears to date a reformthrowingopen the archonshipto the zeugi-
tai, to the same year,457/6, in which the firstzeugite eponymousheld
office:exxœ erstfieraròv 'EyiáXrovdávarov,we are told,ëyvœoav(sc. the
Athenians)xal èx Çevyix œv nqoxQÍveoOaitovç xXrjQœoofxêvovç xœv èvvéa
âgxôvrœv,xal tzqûtoçt¡q^evèÇ avrœv Mvrjaideíòrjç. The text continues:
oí &è 71QÒ TOVTOV návreçèÇ Innéœvxal nevxaxoaiofjLeôifivœv f¡oav... At 25,
2 the author has dated the reformsof Ephialtes to the archon year of
Konon, and at 25, 4 Ephialtes' assassinationis plainly assigned to the
same year. Konon was eponymousarchonin 462/1. By the inclusiverec-
koningemployedin A.P. the sixth year from462/1 is 457/6. Yet 457/6
is the year of Mnesitheideswho is specifiedas the firstzeugite archon.
Describing what seems to be a flagrantcontradictionas a «slightcurio-
sity»,Moore8 suggests,in effect,that the reformis dated to the year in
which its resultbecame manifest.I find this unconvincing.The obvious
solutionis to regardthe words xal nqœxoçfjçÇevèÇ amœv MvtjoiOeíòrjç as
an ineptinterpolation.The interpolator assumed,perhapsrightly,perhaps
wrongly,that the firsteponymouselected afterthe reformwould have
been a zeugite; he then somnambulistically named Mnesitheidesinstead
of Rallias, the eponymousof 456/5. If this is rightthentiqò tovtovin the

6 Someofitselementsareadumbrated,enpassant
, intheappendix (pp.87-89)toMabel
Lang'sbrilliant
andsuggestive Allotment
article byTokens, atHistoria, 8 (1959),pp.81-89.
7 I haveparticularly
inmindtheperenniallycontroversial
datesatAthenaion , 22,
politeia
1-3.On thispassage
seetheappendix,section
a.
0 J.M. Moore,Aristotle
andXenophon onDemocracyandOligarchy, London, 1975,p. 253.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 P. J.BICKNELL

sentencenow followingrœv èvvéa àçxàvtœvis, unexceptionable equiva-

lent to 7ZQÒxovtovxQÓvov.The reformdescribed at A.P. , 26, 2 then,
which broadened the basis of eligibilityfor the archonshipbelongs to
457/6 and zeugitaicould have held the officefrom456/5 onwards.
An earlierreformrelatingto the selectionof archonsis mentionedat
A.P,y 22, 5. Sortitionamongstprokritoi, wa are informed,was made a fea-
tureof the electoralprocedurein the archonyearof Telesinos. Telesinos,
il can be deduced was eponymousarchon in 487/69. The firstarchons,
therefore, chosenunderthe partialsortitionsystemwould have held office
in 486/5.
Thus one reformbearing on the selectionof archonsin 487/6 which
affectedthe office-holdersfrom486/5onward,and anotherin 457/6which
affectedoffice-holders from456/5onward.The two reformsare separated
by exactlythreedecades. Is this mere coincidence?
Again fromA. P. (55, 1) we learnthatin the writer'sday (well into the
second halfof the fourthcentury)therewas a tribalcycleof archons.Each
of the nine traditionalarchonshipstogetherwith a tenth post, that of
grammateusto the thesmothetai , rotatedthroughthe ten phylai in the
course of a ten year period. Thus if phyle x supplied the eponymous
archon in the firstyear of a decennialphase of the cycle, no memberof
th same phylewould fill the same positionuntil the cycle's next phase.
The authorofA.P. does not specifywhether,withineach phase, the tribal
orderwas fixed,or determinedprogressively by the lot. In the latercase,
the procedurewould have workedas follows. In the firstyear of each
phase of the cycleunrestrictedallotmentdecidedwhichof the ten success-
ful candidates,one perphyle, yieldedby a selectionprocessinvolvingdou-
ble sortition,held which office.As the phase progressedmore and more
combinationsof phyleand positionwere excluded. In the tenthand final
year of each phase the lot was unnecessary10.
It has been suggested11thatthe tribalcycle was a fourthcenturyinno-
vation.There is nothing,however,in the textat A. P., 55, 1 thatenforces
such conclusion. On the contrary,as Lang noted12,scrutinyof the
eponymousarchonsfrom496/5to 489/8suggeststhata cycle was already

9 According toA.P., 22,3-5Telesinos

wasarchon intheyearoftheostracism
ofMega-
kleswhich occurredintheyearafter theostracism
ofHipparchos.Hipparchoswasostracised
twoyears after
Marathon : òiakiJióvreç
(490/89) ërr)Svoisequivalent
toëreitqítw.
So Cadoux,
op.cit.,p. 118.
10Compare Lang,op.cit.,pp.87-88.
11SeeMoore,op.cit.,p. 292.
12SeeLang,op.cit.,p. 88.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHONYEAROF ALKMEON 79

in operationin theseyears.To deal withcertaintiesfirst,Hipparchos,the

14
eponymousof 496/513,was a demotesof Aigeid Kollytos ; Themistok-
16
les, who held officein 493/215,was a Phrearrhios and thus a member
of the phyleLeontis ; Aristeides,eponymousarchon in 489/817,whether
theAristeides,or his cousin AristeidesXenophilou18,hailed fromAntio-
chid Alopeke19.To move to less safe ground,Diognetos, the archon of
492/120, is very likely identical with Diognetos of Kekropid Melite
named on a Kerameikosostrakonof the 480s or 472/121.Four different

13SeeDionysios ofHalicarnassos, Ant.Rom.,V, 77,6 andVI, 1, 1.

14Theidentity ofHipparchos thearchon withtheostracisé of488/7 (seenote8 above)has
beengenerallyaccepted (see,forexample, Cadoux, op.cit.,p. 116).Hipparchos' demeisnoted
atA.P., 22,4.
15Fora Themistokles as archon in493/2seeDionysios, Ant.Rom.,VI, 34, 1. WhileI
amstillveryfarfrom confident thatThucydides I, 93,3 refers tothearchonship, itis idle
todispute thatthisThemistokles is theThemistokles. It is truethata homonymous uncleof
toat[Themistokles],
hisis referred , 8, p. 749Hercher,
Epistulae but,inthelightofJohn
Penwills article
revealing atAntichthon, 12(1978),pp.83-107, drawing attentiontothelite-
rarypreoccupations oftheauthor, itwouldbe rasheventoaccept hisexistence onthisevi-
dencealone.
16Forcontemporary evidence forThemistokles' demeseeAgoraostrakon P 5964,one
example outofhundreds nowturned up.
17ThenameofanAristeides stands immediately after thatofPhainippos, theeponymous
archon inMarathon year(A.P., 22,3) infragment d ofthearchon list(R. MeiggsandD.
Lewis,Greek Historical , Oxford
Inscriptions University Press,1969,no.6 atpp.9-10)pub-
lishedonstoneatAthens around 424.Theyaresimilarly juxtaposed bytheParianChrono-
grapher (Marmor Parium , ep.48 and49)from whom theyears 490/89 (forPhainippos) and
489/8(forAristeides) arededucible (seeCadoux,op.cit.,p. 117).
18Forcritiques oftheevidence bearing onthechoiceofidentification see.E. Badianat
pp. 11-13ofhischallenging, andscarcely peltastic(!),article Archons andStrategoi [Antich-
thon,5 (1971),pp. 1-34]andmyowncontribution atRiv.Phil,100(1972),pp. 164-172.
19ForAlopeke as thedemeoftheAristeides, seeAgora ostrakon P 5976,confirming Plu-
1, 1 ; a single
tarch,Aristeides, Kerameikos ostrakon [forwhich seeF. Willemsen, atArch.
Delt.,23(1968),p. 28together withthecomments ofBadian,op.cit.,p. 13note31]descri-
binghimas èxKoíXrjç mostlikely reflectsa voter's confusion ofdemeofresidence withthat
Thephyle,
ofregistration. Antiochis, ofAristeides Xenophilou isattestedinanepigram ofSimo-
nides(F 147Bergk) ; forAlopeke ashisdemeseethesecond reference citedintheprevious note.
20See Dionysios, Ant.Rom.,VI,49, 1.
21Forthesherd itselfseeF. Willemsen, loc.cit.DavidLewis[atZ.P.E.,14(1974),pp.
1-14]hasargued, tomymindverycompellingly, thata fewsherds, separate from themain
depositandbelonging tothe440saside,theKerameikos findrepresents thevoteata single
ostrakophoria,
probably thatof472/1. G. M. E. Williams, ontheother hand,atZ.P.E.,31
(1978),pp. 103-113, hasendorsed themoreconventional viewthata fairproportion ofthe
deposit belongstothe480s.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 P. J.BICKNELL

phylai, then, for foureponymoiin a space of eight years22.

From the factthatthe orderof thephylaiwas evidentlynot the official
one the logical inferenceis that sortitiondetermined,withinthe decade
concerned,whichphyleheld whicharchonshipin each year.Confirmation
of a non-fixedcycle is affordedby Herodotos' statement23 to the effect
that Kallimachos,archon polemarchin 490/89,Marathonyear,owed his
officeto the bean. Since Kallimachos occupied the polemarchyprior to
the reformof 487/6, Herodotos cannot24be alluding to the sortition
amongstprokritoidescribedat A.P. , 22, 5. His referencecan only be to
allotmentof positionsamongstthe ten successfulcandidatesforelection
to the archon board25.
That a tribalcycle with respectto archonsshouldhave operatedin the
earlyfifthcenturyis surelyin itselfprobablegiventhatthe eponymos , the
basileusand thepolemarchos at least were still significant figures.Conside-
rationsof impartiality demandedthe rotationthroughthe phylaiof these
keypositions.If therewas indeeda cyclein the 490s and 480s, thenthere
is littlechance that it did not originatewith Kleisthenes.Althoughthe
grammateionof the thesmothetai , like the tribalcycle, has been regarded
in some quartersas a relativelylate innovation26, it is logical enough to
associate its creationtoo withhis new order27.A workablecycle required
an additionto the traditionalnine archons.
Let us returnnow to the apparent coincidence involving487/6 and
457/6. I submitthat thereis in fact no coincidence.Reformsof, or im-
pinging on28, the procedurefor selectingarchons at Athens were, for
reasons of convenience and impartiality,calibratedwith the decennial

22Theother known archons theperiod

during 496/5-489/8 arenoteasytoassess; forsome
remarks onthemseetheappendix, section b.
23See Herodotos, VI, 109,2.
24Unless,ofcourse, hehasblundered anerror
; but,as Badian(op.cit., p. 23)insists,
onsucha matter is surelyinconceivable.
25Thiswasfirst byLang(op.cit.,p. 88)andBadian(op.cit.,pp.21-25)
appreciated con-
curs.Pausanias(I, 15,3) states Kallimachos
that
categorically was electedtooffice.
26C. Hignett(AHistory oftheAthenian , Oxford
Constitution UniversityPress,1952,p.
that
206)speculated the may
position have been as
created lateas462.Unlessthere isgarbled
allusinatPollux,VIII,92,thereference totheofficeatA.P., 55,1 is unique.
27So,readily,G. deSanctis,Atthis,Turin,1912,p. 150.
28In 307/6numerous honours
extravagant wereheaped bytheAthenians onDemetrios
andhisfather
Poliorketes (seeDiodoros,
Antigonos XX,46 andPlutarch,Demetrios , 10).
Included amongthesewasthecreation oftwoadditional phylai, AntigonisandDemetrias. I
suggestthatthechoiceofthisparticularitemofflatterywasdueinpartatleasttothefact
that307/6 wasthefinalyearofa phaseofthedecennial archoncycle.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHONYEAROF ALKMEON 81

archoncycle institutedby Kleisthenes.Each reform,it was ensured,pas-

sed, so to speak, into the statutebook in a year prior to the commence-
mentof a new phase. It follows,then,that486/5and 456/5were each ini-
tial years of phases of the archon cycle.
If all the above is right,then the firstcompleteofficialyear at Athens
under Kleisthenes' new order, the year in which the archon cycle as a
whole commencedwas a year-6/5 priorto 486/5. 496/5is impossiblylate
and in 516/15 the Athenianswere still ruled by the Peisistratids.Conse-
quently,the firstfull Athenianyear on the Kleistheneansystem,year x,
correspondsto 506/5.
It followsthat year x - 1, the archon year of Alkmeon,in which the
phylai became ten and in which the firstcouncil of 500 and the first
amplifiedboard of archons,comprisingeponymos, basileus
, polemarchos, six
thesmothetai and the grammateusof the thesmothetai were elected, was
507/6.

B. ISAGORAS'
COUNCILOF 300

In 511/10King Kleomenes of Sparta contributedto the suppressionof

Peisistratidrule at Athens. Some years later he again intervenedin
Athens' political affairs,at the behest of Isagoras. Kleisthenes,Isagoras'
leading opponent, left Attika and the latter establishedan oligarchical
regimewhose unpopularitybroughtabout its rapid collapse. This is com-
monplace and undisputed.
At V, 72, 1 HerodotosrelatesthatKleomenes,at the timeof his second
intervention,rrjv ßovÄfjvxataXveiv èneigâro, xqit¡xooíoioiSe roïoi
' The close justapositionof
IaayÓQEiüoraoicorrjoiràç àq%àç èvexeÍQife29.
the referenceto the dissolutionof the boulewith the statementabout the
300 is hardly uncalculated. As Jacoby30and Hignett31,for example,
appreciated,Herodotosplainlyintendedto conveythatIsagoras,the archi-
tect of the programmewhich Kleomenes soughtto implement,soughtto
replace the existingcouncil with a body composed of 300 of his sup-
porters.The size of Isagoras' new council has attractedsurprisingly little
attention.In fact,I have noticedonly two attemptsat accountingforthe
number300.

29Theauthor ofA.P. hasnothing newtoadd; at20,32heparaphrases: xr¡vfxev

' ßovkrjv
(sc.Kleomenes)
èneiQâxo xaxaXveiv, òèxalXQiaxooíovç
Ioayóçav xœv <piXœv
/uex'avxovxvçíovç
xadioxávai
xfiç
tzóXewç.
30SeeF. Jacoby,Atthis
, Oxford Press,1949,p. 367,note81.
University
31See C. Hignett,op.cit.,p. 128.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 P. J.BICKNELL

The firstis that of Jacobywho comments32that 300 «seems to have

been the aristocraticnormal number». The only independent33 suppor-
tingevidencehe offersis Diogenes LaertiosVIII, 3. In thispassage Dioge-
nes states that having fled fromSamos to Kroton Pythagorasconcerned
himselfwith politicalmatters.He thengoes on to assertthatbeing about
300 in number(<ovxeçnqòç rovçxqiaxoaíovç)his pupils (jiadrjtaí)directed
the affairsof Kroton so well thatthe constitutionwas a truearistokratia.
There is no indicationwhatsoeverthat Diogenes equated the threehun-
dred or so with the Krotoniatecouncil. His expressionimplies no more
than that about 300 Krotoniateadherentsof Pythagorasplayed a crucial
role in theirstate's government.That this was, in fact,exactlythe case
is confirmedby a passage in Iamblichos34which derives,throughApollo-
nios, fromTimaios of Tauromenion35.Accordingto Timaios the Pytha-
goreansat Krotonformeda brotherhood, activein politics,whichnumber-
ed over300 (vtièqtçiaxooiovç)but constitutedonlya small minorityin the
city as a whole. Elsewhere36,again the ultimateauthorityis almost cer-
tainlyTimaios37,we learn that the council at Kroton in fact comprised
1000 members.I conclude thatJacoby'sconcept,improbablein itself,of
300 as a quasi-mystical, normalnumberforaristocraticcouncils is totally
unsupported.
In a very recent article38James H. Oliver has offereda suggestion
which is at least less nebulous. He proposesthat the Isagorean 300 were
drawn, 10 each, from 30 gene which were components of the pre-
KleistheneanAtheniancitizenbody. Unfortunately, as I see it, Oliver's 30
gene are the produce of a completelyperverseand impossibleconstruing
of a notice,ultimatelyderivedfromthe lost portionof the A.P., in the
lexiconof Patmos. Accordingto the lexicographeron the subjectofgenne-
tai, there were, prior to Kleisthenes' reform,four Athenianphylai. He

32SeeJacoby, loc.cit.
33On Plutarch,Solon , 12,3-4,seesection c oftheAppendix.
34SeeIamblichos, De vitaPythagorica , 254.
35Apollonios'
dependency onTimaios wasfirst demonstrated byA. Delatte,atRevue
del'instruction
publiqueenBelgique , 52(1909).pp.90ff.Whilecautious K. vonFritz(Pytha-
goreanPolitics
inSouthernItaly, ColumbiaUniversity Press,1940,pp.56-7)wasinbasicagree-
ment withhisconclusions.AtC.Q., n.s.,6 (1956),p. 147,J.S. Morrison appearstodismiss
vonFritz'sreservations.
A further reference,atJustin, TrogiPompei Hist.Phil.Epit 20,4,
to300(herethenumber isexact) Krotoniate Pythagorean activists
alsogoesbacktoTimaios ;
seevonFritz,op.cit.,p. 42,following theearlier ofA. Enmann.
conclusions
36SeeIamblichos, V.P., 45.
37Parallels
betwwen Iamblichos, V.P.,37-57andJustin, 20,4 evidencea common source.
Seenote5 aboveforJustin /Trogos'dependence onTimaios.
38«FromGennetai toCuriales», 'atHesperia, 49 (1980),pp.30-56.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHONYEAROF ALKMEON 83

continues: xœv ôè <pvXœv èxáaxr)fioíqaç etyey, ãç (paxqíaçxal xçixxvaç

êxáXovv,xovxwv&' èxáoTT}avôgaç efyexgiáxovxa. CommentsOliver : «the
extractis ambiguouslyworded so thatone can take it to mean that there
were 360 geneor, as the writerwould prefer,thirtygenewitha contingent
of thirtymen fromeach of twelvephratries».With respect,I can see no
ambiguity.The old Athenian citizen body is progressivelydecomposed
into fourphylai, twelvephratriai/ trittyes, threeto each phyle , 360 gene,
thirty to each /
phratria trittysand, finally,thirty citizens to each genos.
Nothing that followsin the lexicographer's notice contradicts or counter-
indicates the natural interpretation which is confirmedby his eventual
assertion,whose lack of plausibilityis irrelevant,thatthe templateforthe
old organisationof the Atheniancitizen body was a 360 day year. The
fourphylai, we are informed,correspondto the fourseasons, the twelve
phratriai/ trittyesto the twelve months and the thirtygene assigned to
each phratria/ trittysare the analogue of each month'sthirtydays (elç òè
xřjv(paxQÍavxQiáxovxa yévr¡òiaxexoofifjodaixadáneg ai rj/iêqaieiç xòv
jbifjva).xf)v(paxQÍavnot xàç <paxQÍaç.360 days, three hundredand sixty
gene. Thirtygeneonlycannotbe extractedfromthe PatmosLexicographer,
nor fromany parallel notice derived fromthe AthenianPoliteia39,and
such a numberwould be quite incompatiblewithfourprimaryunitsof the
citizen body.
What then is the explanationof Isagoras' choice of the numberof 300
forthe membershipof his council ? The answerseems so obvious that it
is amazing that it has so far(as far as I am aware) eluded the numerous
criticswho have discussed the scenario and chronologyof Kleisthenes'
reforms.
An Isagoreancouncil of 300 appears somethingof a cuckoo withinthe
frameworkof the old organisationof the citizen body into fourphylai,
twelvetrittyes 40and 48 naukrariaiwhich
may or may not have been sub-
divisionsof the trittyes41.300 is indivisibleby 48, and 75 per phyleand
25 per trittysare eccentricand obtrusivecomplements.It is true, of

39See,forexample thescholion
toPseudo-PLATO, Axiochos
, 371d.
40Whether ornotthey wereeverwhollyorpartlyidentical
withthephratriai are
, trittyes
as a feature
attested
definitively ofthepre-Kleistheneancitizenbody; seeW. S. Ferguson,
TheAthenianLawCodeandtheOldAttic inClassical
trittyes, Studies toEdward
Presented Capps
onhisSeventieth
Birthday, Princeton
University Press,1936,pp. 144-158.
41Onthe(originally,forKleisthenes
increasedtheir
number to50; Kleidemos, F.Gr.Hist.,
323F 8) 48 naukrariai A.P., 8, 3,where
seeespecially theformulation makesitimpossible
todecidewhetherornottheywerecomponents ofthetrittyes
.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 P. J.BICKNELL

course,that400 is indivisibleby 12 as well as 48, so thatSolon evidently

42
ignored both trittyesand naukrariai when he created his council, of
400. Solon's council, however,had no precursor.Isagoras surelydisposed
of 400 dedicatedsupporterscapable of fillinga body diplomaticallycons-
tructedto resemble,at least in size, that which it replaced43.I can think
of no otherplausible pre-Kleistheneanbasis fora body of 300 ; the sha-
dowy and purportedlyTheseid division of the citizenryinto eupatridai ,
/
georgoi agroikoi and demiourgoi transiently resurrected in the wake of
Damasias to cope with a crisis over the electionof archons45,was surely
quite defunctand unviable by the final decade of the sixth centuryand
afteryearsof Peisistratidrule. On the otherhand, the number300 is con-
spicuouslyand disarminglycompatiblewith Kleisthenes'reorganisedciti-
zen body of ten phylai and thirtytrittyes . ThirtyIsagorean bouleutaifor
each Kleistheneanphyle; ten fromeach trittys.
The naturalinferenceis, I submit,thatHerodotos'relativechronology
of Kleisthenes'reforms,theirprecipitation, and theiraftermath is absolu-
tely correct taken at face value. The story is as follows.The dateability
of Alkmeon'sarchonshiphelps renderthe chronologyabsolute.
Isagoras (most likelyby securingelection in 509/8 to the eponymous
46
archonship which he held in 508/7) won advantage in a post-
Peisistratidpolitical power strugglebetween himselfand Kleisthenes47.
Immediately(? late in 509/8,when the ekklesiawould stillbe convenedby
and meet under the presidencyof a tractablearchon)48Kleisthenes re-
acted by introducinga populistreformprogrammewhich the demosduly

42Theexistence ofthenaukrariaiatthetimeofSolon'slegislation isguaranteedbya cita-

tionfrom hisNomoi atPhotios,Lex.,s.v.vavxçaçía.
43I donotregard itasconceivablethatIsagoras,whenever, envisagedabolition
ofthehal-
lowedAreopagos council.He might havecircumscribed itspoweranddoubtlessevidentlyand
dissident
potentially Areopagites headedsomeoftheepistia banished
whenhecametopower
(seebelowwithnote26).
44Onthese divisions(thelatter
twoofwhich aresometimes ascribed
toIon),seeespecially
H. G. Wade-Gery, Eupatridai, Archons
andAreopagos3 inhisEssaysinGreekHistory, Oxford,
1958,pp.86-115.
Blackwell,
45SeeA.P., 13, 2.
46SeeDionysios ofHalikarnassos, Ant.Rom .,I, 74,6 andV, 1,1,alsoAP., 21,1toge-
therwiththeremarks ofT. J.Cadoux,atJ.H.S., 68 (1948),pp. 113-114. I cannot accept
theviewofDavidJ.McCargar[seePhoenix , 28(1974),pp.275-281] thatIsagoras
thearchon
of508/7 andIsagoras thearch-opponent ofKleisthenes arenotidentical.
47Herodotos, V, 66,2.
48Lysagoras; seeMarmor Parium,ep. 26 together withT. J.Cadoux,op.cit., p. 113.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHONYEAROF ALKMEON 85

endorsed49.Following ratificationthe various logisticaland diplomatic50

prescriptions of Kleisthenes'legislationwere expedited(duringthe yearof
Isagoras' archonshipand a significantportion of that of his successor,
Alkmeon)51.In time for the elections of 507/6 for 506/5 the reforms
came into effect.With Isagoras, hithertoreluctantor powerlessto resist
the demos'will, able to assess the new order'selectoraland generalpoliti-
cal consequencesand perhaps confrontedwith the prospectof ostracism
(? at an ostrakophoria expeditiouslyscheduled forlate 507/6)52,an appeal
forhelp was made to Kleomenes53.Kleisthenesand his familywere pro-
voked to flightby a missive fromSparta54,Lakedaimoniantroops, too
few as it turnedout, arrivedat Athens55,and Isagoras became masterof
the city (at the very beginningof 506/5)56. Judgingthe Kleisthenean
reorganisation,partlydesigned to facilitatethe enfranchisement of new
citizens, too popular to abolish57, Isagoras, after a furtherpurge of
opponents58,made a cosmeticvirtueof neccessityand establishedan oli-
garchiccouncil of 300 based on the new phylaiand trittyes . As the impact

49Herodotos, V, 66,2.
50SeeA.P., 21,6.
51Although theinsightful considerations adduced E. Thompson, atSymbolae
byWesley
Osloenses, 46(1971),pp.72-79, render itoutofthequestion thatregistrationoftheAthenian
citizensindemesconsumed anything likethesixyears envisagedbyEliot (op.cit.,note18
at pp. 146-147), itis doubtful,inmyopinion, thatall thenecessarydetailsofKleisthenean
reorganisation couldhavebeenworked outin lessthan18 months at least.As Andrewes
[C.Q..,n.s.,27 (1977),p. 247]forcibly points outdeterminationandadjustment oftrittyes,
impossible untildemestatisticswereavailable, would havebeena complex andintricateprocess.
tor reasons adduced at pp.49-50ofmymonograph StudiesinAthenian Politics
and
Genealogy , Wiebaden, 1972,1takeitforgranted thattheostracismlawgoesbacktoKleisthe-
nes.Mypresent suggestionas toitscontext more closelyresemblestheviewsputforward by
G. StantonatJ.H.S., 90(1970),pp. 180-183 thanthehariolationatp. 41,note158ofmy
ownwork.
3 Herodotos, V, 70,1,emphasising as itdoesthebondofxeniabetween and
Isagoras
Kleomenes, suggests a personal appealtotheSpartan kingrather thana formal approachto
theLacedaimonians. HenceKleomenes' arrivalatAthens ovovvjueyáAr) x^QÍ(Herodotos,
V, 72, 1)?
54Herodotos, V, 70,2.
55Herodotos, V, 72, 1.
56Thereason forKleomenes' a heraldtoAthens todemand thewithdrawal from
sending
thecityofthe«accursed» Alkmeonidai (Herodotos, V, 70,2) prior tohisowndirect inter-
ventionmaybethat hewasengaged incelebration oftheHyakinthiawhich fellintheAthenian
Thargelion orSkirophorion, toward thecloseofthearchon year.
SeeAristotle, Politics
, 1275b 34-37.Theobvious senseissurely thecorrect one,des-
pite,forexample, OliveratHistoria , 9 (1960),pp. 503-507.
58Herodotos, V, 72, 1.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86 P. J.BICKNELL

of Spartan interventionand continued occupation wore off,resistance,

under the directionof the oustedbut unitedbouleof 500, stiffened. Even-
tually confronted with an armed uprising,Isagoras' regimecollapsed59.
The account in A.P. (20, 1-4) of the eventssurroundingthe Kleisthe-
nean reformsis almost entirely60 dependenton that of Herodotos.More
often than not elements of the Herodotean version are simply
paraphrased61.The historian,however, provided no absolute chrono-
logical indicationsand in this respectthe authorof A. P. was thrownback
on his own resources.Implicitat 22, 2, wherehe is dealingwiththe politi-
cal aftermath of the Kleistheneanrevolution,is awarenessthatthe reforms
were implementedin the archonyear of Alkmeon62,but it is thatof Isa-
goras which featuresexplicitly63 in his storyof the power strugglewhich
led to Kleisthenes' ultimatetriumph.The question is did fixationupon
Isagoras' tenureof office,coupled withhis personalspeculationas to how
the officemight have been exploited by its beleagueredholder64,lead
him to modifyHerodotos' relativechronology?
Hignett65forcefully argued that Herodotosand the A.P . are incompa-
tiblebecause the authorof the latterimpliesthatIsagoras' appeal to Kleo-
menes preceded even the ratification of Kleisthenes' legislation.Seager66
disagreed and held that the two accounts can be broughtinto line. In

59Herodotos, V, 72, 1-2.

60It is unnecessary toconcur withWade-Gery's view(op.cit.,pp.136-137) thatat20,3
theauthor oí A.P. tacitly
corrected Herodotos, V, 72,2 inthelightofa decree alluded to
ina scholiontoAristophanes, tra
Lysis ta,273.Ifthescholiast iscorrectly
informed,theAthe-
niansrecorded onbronze thecondemnation todeathfortreason andother
ofIsagoras Athe-
nianswhoparticipated inKleomenes' attempt (? in506/7 orthefollowing subsequent
year),
tohishumiliation inAthens bythesupporters ofKleisthenes' toinvade
reforms, Attikaat
theheadofa Peloponnesian leaguearmy andtoinstai Isagoras as tyrant.
Herodotos, V,74,
1,belonging tohisaccount (V,74-76)ofthisdevelopment, is inapparent with
contradiction
V,72,2-4.Imprisoned forexecution intheearlier passage, Isagoras thenturnsupvery much
alive.Having decided,inevitably,thatV,74,1 overrode V, 72,2-4withrespect toIsagoras,
theA.P.'s author maywellhaveconcluded that Isagoras' leading accompanied
supporters him
toSparta. Theinconsistency inHerodotos is strange : didheomittonotethatIsagoras and
hisfollowers werepardoned, orthattheyescaped enmasse ? Weshallnever know.
61Foranexample, seenote28 above.
62See section a oftheappendix.
63SeeA.P., 21, 1.
64He might havedecided, forexample,thatitmust havebeenas headofstate thatIsago-
rassolicitedinterventionfrom Herodotos
Sparta. (V,70,2) connects appealwiththe
Isagoras*
bondofxeniathatexisted between himselfandKleomenes andthusimplies thattheapproach
wasunofficial.
65Hignett,op.cit.,pp.331-336.
66SeeR. Seager,Herodotus andAth.Pol.ontheDateofCleisthenes Reforms, atA.J.P.,
84 (1963),pp.287-289.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHONYEAROF ALKMEON 87

order,however,to establishtheircompatibilityhe found it necessaryto

maintainthatbothwritersset Kleomenes' intervention beforethe reforms'
implementation. But the violencethus done to Herodotos is quite unaccep-
table. At V, 66, 2 in his narrativeKleisthenesrespondsto Isagoras' achie-
vement of political predominacyby wooing the demos. His response is
implementation of the tribalreform: 5Adrjvaíovçòexa<pvXovç ènoírjoe,not
èitoíei. At this point Herodotos digressesat length(67-8) to comparethe
constitutionalactivityof Kleisthenesof Athens with that of Kleisthenes
of Sikyon.At 69, 1 Herodotossummariseshis excursusand thencarefully
reorientateshis audience by repeating(69, 2) that Kleisthenes turned
popularisand increasedthe numberof the Athenianphylai; ènoírjoe(the
aoristagain) nXevvaçèÇèkaooôvœv.He goes on to add (if the sentencecon-
cerned is not an interpolation)that Kleisthenes made (ènoírjoe) the
phylarchsten instead of four, and distributed(xarévei/ue ) the demes
amongst the ten new tribes: now the mainstreamnarrativeresumes.
Having won the demosover to his side (;ngoodêfievoç ), clearlyby means of
the implementedtribal reform,Kleisthenes was strongerthan his rival
(still 69, 2). Now the underdogin turn,Isagoras appealed to Kleomenes
(70, 1). I cannotcomprehendSeager's denial of a strictchronologicalcon-
nectionbetween69, 2, pickingup 66, 2, and 70, 1. To returnto theA P.,
consensusabout its author's chronologyand the rationalethereofseems
unobtainable.Sufficeit to say thatif he did intendto set the intervention
of Kleomenes beforethe implementation at least of Kleisthenes'reforms,
he was wrong. The implicationof Isagoras' council of 300 refutessuch
heterodoxy.

APPENDIX

a. A.P., 22, 1-3

The chronologicaldifficulties of thispassage are notoriousand it seems
unlikelythatconsensusas to theirsolutionis attainable.I firstoutlinethe
salientdata and then statemy views,which are not original,as brieflyas
possible.
First the data. At 22, 2 the authordates the inceptionof the oath of
the council of 500 to the archon year of Hermokreon,the fifth//età
ravTTjvTTjvxaráoraoiv. The katastasisis Kleisthenes' reorganisationof
the Atheniancitizenbody togetherwithotherinnovationsof his including
the ostracismlaw (22, 1); eneixa, the writer continues (22, 2); rovç

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88 P. J.BICKNELL

oTQctTTjyovç TjQovvTo xaxà <pvXáç.Aftera few details he goes on (22, 3) :

ërei Sè fietà rama ôœôexârœ vixrjoavxeçxf¡vêv Magadœvi fiáxr¡vènl
0aivÍ7i7iovâgxovToç,òiaXinóv reç ëxrjòvo ¡llexà rfjvvixrjv... éxQr¡oavro
rœ
VÓfjLCÜ TÒV
71EQÌ ÒOTQaXlO/LlÓV.
Now exegesis.If it is agreed,as I thinkit mustbe, with Sumner1that
at 22, 2 is correctthen the authorcannot have linkedthe Kleis-
TcéfjLTtxcû
theneankatastasis , once effective,
withthe archonyearof Isagoras.Recko-
ning inclusively, the fifth year from 508/7 is 504/3 in which
Akestorides 2, not Hermokreonwas eponymousarchon.
If Pollux was in a positionto ascertainthat the phylai became ten in
the year of Alkmeon,this datum must have been available to the author
of A. P. The naturalinferenceis that this is the year to which he tacitly
'
assigned the katastasis implementation.The fifthyear from 507/6 is
503/2. Hermokreon,then, was eponymousarchon in 503/2.
WorkingbackwardsfromMarathon(490/89)the twelfthyear is 501/0.
Thereforethe innovationwith respectto strategoicannotbelong, like the
3
inceptionof the bouleuticoath, to the year of Hermokreon.As Fornara
saw, ëneixa at 22, 2 is not used forthe sake of a logical distinction,but
is indicativeof chronologicalsequence. There was an intervalof two years
between the oath and the generalshipreformwhose date is pegged by
means of the nexus with Phainippos and Marathon.

b. The eponymous
archonsfrom496/5to 487/6.

In the main textI arguedthatfromthe firstcompleteyearon the Kleis-

thenean systemonward each of the nine archonshipstogetherwith the
post of secretaryto the thesmothetai
rotatedthroughthe phylai in a non-
fixeddecennial cycle. The firstphase of the cycle commencedin 506/5.
If this is right, each of the eponymous archons within the decades
506/5-497/6,496/5-487/6and so on should be membersof a different
phyle.
For the second phase of the proposed cycle, beginningin 496/5 and
concludingin 487/6,all the eponymousarchonsare known.I drew atten-
tion to the fact that four of them, Hipparchos (496/5), Themistokles

1 SeeC.Q.,n.s.,11(1961),p. 36.A popular (seeforexample,

nostrum Cadoux,op.cit.,
p. 116)hasbeentoreplacenê^mo)with òyòówonthebasisofconfusion
ofrjwithé. AsSum-
merobserves,thereason forsuchconfusionis notexactly
self-evident.
2 See Dionysios,Ant.Rom.,V, 37, 1.
3 See C.Q.,n.s.,13(1963),p. 104.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ARCHONYEAROF ALKMEON 89

(493/2),Diognetos (492/1)and Aristeides(489/8) in factdid belong to dif-

ferent tribes, namely, Aigeis, Leontis, Kekropis and Antiochis
respectively.
The othereponymousarchonsof the same phase in the putativecycle
are, in chronological order, Philippos (495/4)4, Pythokritos(494/3)5,
8
Hybrilides(49 I/O)6,Phainippos (490/89)7, Anchises (488/7) and Telesi-
nos (487/6)9. Are thereany indicationsas to the tribalaffiliationof these
six officeholdersand, if so, are theycompatibleor incompatiblewith the
cycle's actuality?
Two of the names, Hybrilidesand Anchises(suggestiveof an original
connectionwithPeisistratidactivityin the Sigeion area) are quite inscruta-
ble. I am aware of no otherAthenianbearersof any period of either.
In the fifthcenturyPhilippos is associated with Pandionid Rydathe-
naion (by way of the fatherof the comic dramatistAristophanes; see Pro-
sopographiaAttica, henceforward PA> no.14399), Pandionid Probalinthos
(PA 14415), Oineid Oe (/G, I2, 109, 1-2) and Leontis (SEG, 10, 424, 23).
The onlyPythokritos attestedforthe fifthcenturyis a Leontid casualty
(S£G, 10, 424, 49).
On the basis of Herodotos, VI, 121, 1 and the rarityof the name
Cairns10sought to connect Phainippos with the Kerykes.If my version
of the cycle hypothesisis correcthe could hardlybe a brotherof Rallias
Lakkoploutoswho was a demotesof AntiochidAlopeke11.But, as Cairns
was aware, many alternativerelationshipsare possible; for example, as
Davies 12suggested,Phainippos the archoncould be the son of a sisterof
Rallias' father,Hipponikos Ammon. The only fifthcenturyPhainippos
whose phyleis known is PA 13983 of Leontid Paionidai.
There remainsTelesinos, the archon of 487/6. /G, I2, 650 recordsa
dedicationon the Akropolisto Athenamade by one Telesinos of (Leontid)
Rettos. On the basis of letterformsRaubitschek13dated the inscription

4 EoyoxXéovçyêvoçxaìßioq(ed.A. C. Pearson),
2.
SeeMarmor Parium, ep.47 togetherwiththecomments ofCadoux(op.cit., p. 116).
6 Dionysios,
Ant. Rom.,VII, 1, 5 andPausanias,
VI, 9, 5.
7 Seenote17tothemaintext.
8 Dionysios,
Ant.Rom.,VIII, 1, 1.
9 Seenote9 tothe maintext.
SeeF. Cairns,
A NoteontheEponymous Archon
of490/89, atRhein.
Mus.,119(1971),
pp. 131-134.
11SeeJ.K. Davies,AthenianPropertied Oxford
Families, Press,1971,p. 256.
12SeeCairns,op.cit.,p. 113, University
note15.
13A. E. Raubitschek,
Dedicationsfrom theAthenian Mass.,1949,
Akropolis,Cambridge,
p. 43.

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90 P. J.BICKNELL

around 500 or a littleearlier.No otherfifthcenturybearer of what re-

mained a rare name is attested.In the fourthit appears in Akamantid
Hagnous (PA 13529), in Oineid Acharnai(SEG, 21, 671, 10) and in Hip-
pothontis(PA 13528).
I submit that no serious counterindication to my conceptionof the
archoncycle emergesfromall this,such as it is. The only probleminvol-
ves Telesinos. Perhapsthereis a connectionbetweenthe dedicatorand the
archon,but I can see no difficultyin supposing,forexample,thatthe lat-
ter was a youngerson, named aftera distinguishedforbearof his mother,
of a sisterof the former.

C. PLUTARCH,
Solon, 12, 3-4
The stricturesof Jacoby14notwithstanding I endorse the view that
Plutarchretrojectsto Solonian timesan eventwhich occurredduringthe
regimeof Isagoras.
AfterKleisthenes and his familyhad withdrawnfromAttikain res-
ponse to Kleomenes' dictate,Isagoras soughtto rendertheirexile official
by way of a show trial.The «court»was constitutedby his council of 300.
Plutarchdescribesthe accuser as Myron Phlyeus; a Kleistheneanstyle
demoticforwhichJacobycites no convincingparallelwith respectto the
period prior to Kleisthenes' legislation.

Monash University
, P. J. Bicknell.
, Victoria3168y
Clayton
Australia.

14Jacoby, note81.
op.cit.,pp.367-368,

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:56:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions