The Reforms of 487 B.C.

in the Selection of Archons

Author(s): Robert J. Buck
Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Apr., 1965), pp. 96-101
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/268282 .
Accessed: 04/01/2014 14:52

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.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:52:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REFORMS OF 487 B.C. IN THE SELECTION OF ARCHONS
ROBERT J. BUCK

THE sole direct reference to these rent popular dogma, which made Solon
reforms in ancient literature is the founder of many, if not most, of the
Ath. Pol. 22. 5: E'UO'U,aeraT(l)Gripy democratic institutions of the fourth
erT dt T atvou apxoV'or, xu4 aav century.2 The author argued from the
-ToV evvx aZxOVToa xaT& cpu?oq ex Tcv survival in his own time of double
7pOXpLOe'VT&V U6O'TV 8p&v 7ZVTXOaC&v, sortition in the election of archons,
TTre pxrT TnV rupav '80C 7ZpCOOV. OL 8Or which he coupled with the election of
7tpOTrepOt MX&V-reiacv a[pvt. Telesinus the tamiai.3 The opponents have the
can safely be dated to 487/6, and the best of the argument; Aristotle is in-
textual problem with 7rev-axoacov will surmountable if a'o'pea cannot mean
be disregarded for the present. The X?4pcaL, which it cannot, in the con-
phrase ro ,uo 'v Tupavv8oc refers texts of the Politics and Ath. Pol.4
back to chapter 8. 1, where Solon is Two difficulties remain. Herodotus
given credit for first introducing the (6. 109. 2) tells us that the polemarch at
lot for the selection of archons. There Marathon was elected by lot. This is
is considerable dispute whether the evi- universally agreed to be an error, cor-
dence of 8. 1 is to be accepted or not, rected even in antiquity.5 Demetrius of
that is, whether Solon really did in- Phaleron (Plut. Arist. 1. 2 ) states that
troduce sortition, so that the reforms Aristides was chosen archon by lot, in
of 487/6 mark a reintroduction, or 479/8. Though he is certainly wrong in
whether the author of Ath. Pol. is his placing of Aristides, he does nothing
wrong. The modern supporters of the to contradict the dating of the change
Solonian origin for the lot argue that to sortition. On the other hand Idome-
the author is correct, that the lot, neus (Plut. Arist. 1. 8), who seems to
having lapsed under the tyranny (Ath. follow the accepted dating for Aristides'
Pol. 22. 1), was not used between 510 archonship (489/8), said that he was
and 487 and was reintroduced in 487/6.1 elected, not chosen by lot. Thus 487/6
The opponents argue that the lot seems the date for the first introduction
could not have been used for the of the lot for the archons; the evidence
archons so early. For one thing it con- of Ath. Pol. 8. 1 and the phrase r -'v
tradicts Aristotle's Politics (1274a1-15 should be disregarded.
uupocvvaot
among other citations), where the There are at least six different opinions
people in Solon's time had in their on why the Athenians changed to the
power To Iraq &pX?&pezaOoat xoO'UOU- lot when they did: (1) The change was
vev. For another it does not square passed to prevent the Alcmaeonids and
with the evidence of Thucydides (6. 54. their friends from monopolizing the
6) and Herodotus (1. 59. 6; 5. 55) that great offices.6 (2) It was passed to
the tyrants preserved the existing enhance the strategoi at the expense of
constitution; no lapse is allowed for the archons and so to support Cleis-
here. Third, it is claimed that the thenes' legislation.7 (3) Themistocles
author of Ath. Pol. was reflecting cur- was behind it, to gain support among
[CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY, LX, April, 1965] 96

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:52:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REFORMS OF 487 B.C. IN THE SELECTIONOF ARCHONS
the hippeis and to exclude younger and
formidable rivals from the Areopagus.8
(4) It was passed to avert the danger of
a clash between the nine archons and
the strategia.9 (5) It was passed primari-
ly for military ends.10 (6) The Athenians
liked the idea of sortition, regarded it as
democratic, and in the eighties the law
passed as part of a democratic reaction.1
It might be well to ascertain exactly
what sort of election this reform was
replacing before we delve more deeply
into motives. Most authorities assume
that after the Solonian reforms the
archons were elected directly by the
ecclesia, by a show of hands, or a poll,
in a single process.12 There are, how-
ever, difficulties with this view: one is
that tribal interests are ignored; another
is that after 487/6 a double selection,
the xkp6COG ZX 7rpOXpV-cOV, that is, a
preliminary winnowing in the tribes or
demes, then a final lot drawing, replaced
this assumed single election. No other
magistrates than the archons were
chosen by such a two-stage process; all
other officials elected by lot, with one
possible exception, were appointed after
a single sortition; even the tamiai cited
in Ath. Pol. (8. 1) as a parallel to the
archons were selected by lot from the
pentakosiomedimnoi and not by any
xXRpoas &xwpoxcpCov.'3Only the boule
may have been selected in this way,'4
but even here a single sortition may
have sufficed. It seems clear that an
original single election (or the principle
of a single election) was replaced by a
single sortition in the case of most
early offices. If this is so, it is anomalous
that a double process should replace a
single election in the case of the archons.
It seems far more likely that the cur-
rent assumption concerning the election
of archons is wrong, and that some
other mode was established by the
reforms of Solon.
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:52:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
97
Aristotle says that the citizens had,
after Solon, the power otpeZa6Out xo'
eCu,OLv,m "to elect and call to ac-
count." This phrase does not neces-
sarily imply a single, direct election.
The term Ox'Kpea&q and its congeners
must mean some sort of "voting," not
sortition,15 but they can mean any
mode, including indirect election and
co-optation.16 Since this is so, the
survival after 487/6 of an almost unique
two-step procedure in naming archons
would enable one to infer a two-stage
election before 487, not, as the Ath.
Pol. says, sortition after election (sorti-
tion having been, as we have seen,
ruled out), but rather as Isocrates
believed,17 an election from an elected
slate, oc'peax x%pOX%pO&mV.
It is pretty generally agreed that
before the time of Solon the Areopagus
had the power of appointing archons,
with, perhaps, the formal approval of
the ecclesia.18
Solon, as he himself and others tell
us, kept the power of the people re-
strained within narrow limits.19 Though
he changed the social order, nonetheless
he makes it clear that he did as little as
he could to disturb the existing con-
stitution.20 He may well have regulated
entry into the Areopagus, but it would
be most surprising if he deprived it of
any rights, including the right of
nominating the nine archons. Instead
he "suffered neither side to prevail un-
justly" and "wrote his laws equally for
base and noble."
The Areopagus would select the nine
archons as before and submit them to
the ecclesia for a rubber-stamp assent,
but henceforth from a slate of prokritoi,
forty in number if the author of Ath.
Pol. is to be believed, that is, ten
elected from each tribe. The a,peZaOocL
of Aristotle would refer to this election
by the tribes or to the formal approval
98 ROBERT J. BUCK

of the ecclesia, or both. If Jacoby is provoked too much. There would be

right in his interpretation of Plato's enough Pisistratid supporters to ensure
Laws (759D) the election of the exegetai that a showing of suitable names ap-
provides a good parallel. They were peared among the forty, and, doubtless
chosen under a law of Solonian date by the Areopagus would take action favor-
a similar double process, with the tribes ing the Pisistratids by naming suitable
electing a slate of candidates and Delphi thesmothetae and occasionally even
taking the place of the Areopagus for archons, as will be seen below, when in
the final nomination.21 Presumably the its opinion the opposition was weakened
ecclesia then gave the Delphic choice its or divided in factions.
formal approval. During the three years after the
Such a clumsy mode of election, in expulsion of the tyrant and before the
which the people could have a voice great reforms a few virtuous laws were
under strict control, would fit Solon's passed, like the one outlawing the tor-
cautious conservatism very well. A ture of citizens (Andoc. De myst. 43).
similar desire to give the ecclesia some Party strife soon arose, however, be-
say, with the agenda under similarly tween the Alcmaeonids under Cleis-
strict control, may have led to the thenes and Isagoras and his sup-
establishment of the Council of Four porters. There is no reason to doubt
Hundred.22 At any rate, this method of that something lies behind the as-
selecting the archons does not contra- sertion that Isagoras was a friend of the
dict Ath. Pol. 22. 5, since the archons tyrants,24 if only that the friends of
would be octpvtoc, both by the people the tyrants supported him as the lesser
and the Areopagus, and not xk%pcoto; of evils. The idea seems incredible that
it does not clash with the Politics, since Cleisthenes took three years to find
the people did elect these magistrates, himself overmatched, and then three or
even if indirectly; and at the same time four months to do a volte-face, ingratiate
it provides a convenient origin for the himself with the demos and prepare his
puzzling, two-stage xkp&6L ex tpo- new organization. It is too much, even
for a Greek politician.25 It seems much
This method might also provide a more reasonable that the proposed re-
convenient explanation for some of the forms of the citizen body and the tribal
vagaries of Athenian politics to 487. In system were espoused by Cleisthenes
the first place, it makes it easy to see and the Alcmaeonids from the time of
how the tyrants were able, without a defeat soon after their return to
changing the existing constitution, to Athens. They were a family in favor
insure the selection of their nominees neither with their fellow nobles nor
with a minimum of inconvenience. A with the Pisistratid faction; Leipsydri-
rump Areopagus at first, then a pre- um taught them the lesson that popular
ponderance of followers would suffice.23 support was not to be scorned, as former-
After 510 the right of the Areopagus ly; and they wanted power. They
to choose the Nine from forty nominees, turned to the people. Their proposals
even the nine least popular, must have must have been endlessly discussed,
been a source of discord, if not of power: and perhaps somewhat modified. Gradu-
though the Areopagus must have been ally they gained more and more ad-
pro-Pisistratid (Ath. Pol. 22. 4), the herents.26 The opposition was strong:
people and the nobles could not be on the one hand the Pisistratid faction,

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:52:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REFORMS OF 487
watching with increasing despondency
the gradual erosion of their popular
support; on the other, Isagoras and the
oligarchic nobles, seeing with increasing
alarm the prospect of actual popular
sovereignty. It is worth noting that the
archons of 510/9, Skamandrios, and
509/8, Lysagoras,27 bear names that sug-
gest the tyrants' circle.28The difficulties
that have arisen in explaining the oc-
currence of these names disappear if
they are pro-Pisistratid nominees of the
Areopagus. Thus doubts about the size
of popular support, particularly in the
face of hostile archons, would explain
why the reforms were enacted no earlier
than 508/7.
Finally, in an attempt to block Cleis-
thenes, who by this time must have
gained close to a majority of the ec-
clesia, Isagoras was made archon as the
result of an alliance of Pisistratids and
oligarchs. The revision of the citizen
lists must be placed at the latest here,
if it was not earlier and one of the
causes of popular discontent (Ath. Pol.
13. 5). Then events must have moved
fast. Cleisthenes, in whatever capacity
he may have acted,29 brought his
program before the people, who passed
it (summer 508). Isagoras, in whose
presence and against whose opposition
the bill had gone through, appealed to
Sparta. Then came the Spartan inter-
vention, the exile of Cleisthenes and
Isagoras' ignominious defeat (autumn
508).30 The Areopagus was no doubt
implicated in Cleisthenes' exile,31 but,
nonetheless, this body may have been
the "boule" that headed the resistance;
a double cross by Isagoras (the at-
tempted dissolution) could have broken
up the uneasy alliance of pro-Pisistratids
and oligarchs and turned the Areopagites
against him. After the expulsion of
Isagoras and Cleomenes, while Cleis-
thenes was still in exile, but after the
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:52:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
B.C. IN THE SELECTIONOF ARCHONS 99
decree was passed for his recall, an
embassy was dispatched to Persia.32
There are many difficulties in trying to
make the Alemaeonids responsible for
this embassy,33 and it would seem better
explained as a last desperate attempt
by the pro-Pisistratids, relying perhaps
on the sudden popularity of the Are-
opagus, to bring back Hippias before
Cleisthenes was firmly in control. It
failed; Cleisthenes disowned the embas-
sy; the enrolment of new citizens and
the organization of new tribes proceeded
amidst various alarms and excursions.
Alemaeon, a kinsman of Cleisthenes,
was nominated archon by a thoroughly
chastened Areopagus (was ostracism a
device to terrify its leaders ?), and in
his term the new reforms started to
come into effect.34
Even after the reforms the Areopagus
would have been eager to exploit any
weakening in the support of the people
for the Alemaeonids or other popular
leaders. It would have become ap-
parent that the Areopagus and its
archons could act at cross-purposes
with the ecclesia, and that some checks
were required. I suggest this is pre-
cisely the reason why the strategia was
reformed and the new oath was ad-
ministered to the boule in 501/0 or
504/3.35 The strategia gained at the
expense of the archon and the pole-
march,36 the boule at the expense of
the Areopagus.37 There could still be
trouble, as the election of Hipparchus
in 496/5 indicates, and, with the checks
imposed seeming sufficient to many, the
division between the supporters of the
Areopagus and its opponents must have
been fairly even for most of the nine-
ties.
The events of Marathon, however,
and the evidence of disaffection clearly
indicated to the farsighted that some
reform of the archonship was needed.
100
Since a large proportion of the Areop-
agites were still pro-Pisistratid, some-
thing had to be done.
The offices, however, were old and
prestigious, encrusted with religious
functions. They could not be abolished.
Since the strategoi were already elec-
tive, it might not be suitable to elect
directly a second group with overlapping
responsibilities. Furthermore, the ar-
chons were one-term officers by tra-
dition. The superior merits of the stra-
tegia in this line had doubtless been
soon appreciated. The Nine did not
form a board.38 Each archon had his
own province and seldom did or could
infringe on another's. Administratively
they had not much in common. The
strategia formed a council; their duties,
save, perhaps, those of leading their
tribal regiments, were those assigned or
assumed. The strategia was flexible and
adaptable; the archontate could not be.
An important point, too, was that the
election of archons by lot would ex-
clude rising young politicians from the
Areopagus and give those leaders who
were then members of this important
and still venerated body some ad-
vantage. Sortition would gain much
support for its proponents among the
less prominent hippeis and pentakosio-
medimnoi, who would otherwise not
have even a chance at the archontate.39
Nevertheless there were enough pro-
Pisistratids and others to put up a
stiff opposition. Even though the
former would have been discredited
after Marathon, some immediate cause
must have been needed, some scandal,
to swing popular support decisively to
the side of the reformers, especially
after the performance of Callimachus at
Marathon.
The fiasco with Aegina, dated by some
to this time, 488/7, with the seizure of
prominent Athenians, the defeat of the
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:52:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROBERT J. BUCK
counterraid and the fumbling of the
government, might well be blamed on
the archons (the generals would be eager
to disclaim responsibility, perhaps with
good reason). Aristides and Themis-
tocles must have made the most of it.
The time for action seemed ap-
propriate in 488/7, for whatever reason.
It has been noticed that when a serious
division occurred on a matter of policy
in the later eighties, one of the leaders
was ostracized and the policy of the
other was followed. I would suggest
that this was the case from 487 on.
Quite possibly there had been abortive
attempts at ostracism previously,40
which failed for lack of the requisite
total. The balance had been too even.
By mid-488/7 the reform of the
archontate was brought forward for the
last time; the balance had shifted.
Hipparchus, the leader of the pro-
Pisistratids and of the opposition to
reform, was ostracized. Miltiades,
Aristides and, probably, Megacles as
Areopagites saw to the election of
Telesinus, and the way was clear for
reform. The prokritoi were elected as
before, but there were more of them,
500 or 100.41 The Nine were then chosen
by lot. The archontate was no longer
effectual in the state.
Thus the theory that the archons
were noiminated by the Areopagus from
a slate elected by the people accords
with the Ath. Pol. and the Politics,
provides an explanation for the later
XXCjpWC7L EX 7CpOXpLoV, and offers an
economical explanation for several
features of Athenian politics to 487. In
particular it might help to explain the
pro-Pisistratid vagaries, the cross-pur-
poses observed between archons and
ecclesia, and the institution of new sets
of offices to "bracket" and eventually
supplant the archontate.
UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
 THE REFORMS OF 487 B.C. IN THE SELECTIONOF ARCHONS
NOTES
1. So V. Ehrenberg, RE, XIII (1927), s.v. "Losung,"
1470-75; H. T. Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History
(Oxford, 1958), pp. 110-15; other literature in Busolt-
Swoboda, pp. 842-43.
2. See, e.g., Dem. 18. 6-7; 19. 251-56; Isoc. 7. 16;
15. 231-32. Cf. A. Fuks, The Ancestral Constitution
(London, 1953), pp. 14-15.
3. So C. Hignett, History of the Athenian Constitution
(Oxford, 1952), pp. 173-78; 321-26; see Busolt-Swoboda,
loc. cit.
4. Arist. Pol. 1298b8-10; 1300a15-20; Hignett, op.
cit., p. 323.
5. Cf. Paus. 1. 15. 3. M. Lang, Historia, VIII (1959), 88
has suggested that Callimachus was elected by his tribe,
but allotted as representative of his tribe to the pole-
marchy. This, however, contradicts the sense of Ath.Pol.
22. 5.
6. G. De Sanctis, Atthis' (Turin, 1912), p. 374.
7. Wade-Gery, op. cit., pp. 153-54.
8. A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks (London, 1962),
pp. 284-85.
9. Hignett, op. cit., p. 187 and n. 3.
10. A. R. Hands, JHS, LXXIX (1959), 75.
11. Jacoby, FGrH, III, b, 1, 122-23.
12. So, e.g., T. J. Cadoux, JHS, LXVIII (1948), 114,
n. 249; Burn, op. cit., pp. 284-85; Hignett, op. cit.,
pp. 173-78.
13. As Hignett has clearly shown, op. cit., pp. 322-24.
14. Cf. Hignett, op. cit., pp. 150, 227.
15. See n. 4 above.
16. Arist. Pol. 1300alO-34 distinguishes at least seven
different modes of ocp4a; for indirect election, ibid.
1318b23 at Mantinea; for co-optation, ibid. 1292b2,
1298b3.
17. Isocrates was right, at least on this point, in his
view of the Solonian constitution (cf. Fuks, Ancestral
Constitution, p. 22 and n. 72, with references quoted
therein).
18. Ath. Pol. 8. 2, followed by Burn, op. cit., p. 176;
Hignett, op. cit., pp. 78-79, emphasizes the nominal
power of the ecclesia, but admits that the nobles could
reduce its role to a formal approval.
19. Solon, Frag. 5 Diehl3; Arist. Pol. 1274al5-19.
20. Solon, Frags. 5, 8 Diehl3; Arist. Pol. 1273b41-
1274a4; Hignett, op. cit., p. 89.
21. Atthis, pp. 13-14, 29-30 and the long n. 53,
pp. 248-50. The word svz?Xv is used for the Delphic
choice. The specific procedure followed in electing the
candidates for the archonships in the tribes was doubtless
as complicated as that for the exegetai. Wade-Gery, op.
cit., pp. 110-15, opposes the idea of election, preferring a
selection by lot.
22. Plut. Solon 19. 1; Hignett, op. cit., pp. 92-95, and
many others (see, e.g., Busolt-Swoboda, p. 845 n. 3 for
several) deny the existence of this council. Their reasons
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:52:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
101
seem insufficient, and Swoboda's remark at the end of his
note still applies.
23. Cf. Hignett, op. cit., p. 116.
24. Ath. Pol. 20-21. Hdt. 5. 70 merely says that he
remained in Athens during the tyranny. For recent work
on Cleisthenes and the period 508-487 see C. W. J. Eliot,
Coastal Demes of Attika (Toronto, 1962), pp. 143-47;
G. V. Sumner, CQ, LV (1961), 31-54; R. Sealey, Historia,
IX (1960), 155-80; D. W. Bradeen, TAPA, LXXXVI
(1955), 22-30; M. F. McGregor, HSCP, Supp. I (1940),
72-95; and Hignett and Burn, opp. citt., passim.
25. Hignett follows this theory, op. cit., pp. 125-26.
26. For the proposals and why they were popular, see
Burn, op. cit., pp. 176-86.
27. Cadoux, op. cit., p. 113.
28. Skamandrios, see Wade-Gery, op. cit., p. 146, n. 1.
Lysagoras, a rare name; it appears in Thasos on the lists
of theoroi, probably of one family, chiefly from the third
and second centuries B.C. (IG, XII, 8); a L. of Paros
becomes an Athenian proxenos after 338 B.C. (IG, XII,
3. 251); apart from these it is recorded in RE XIII and
Pape-Benseler only for the archon, for the father of the
tyrant Histiaeus of Miletus and for the tyrant (?) of
Andros. Possibly the archon L. bore a name inherited
from one of these families.
29. Hignett, op. cit., pp. 393-94.
30. This sequence during 508 seems to fit best. Cf.
Hignett, op. cit., pp. 331-36.
31. Burn, op. cit., p. 180.
32. Hdt. 5. 73. 1; McGregor, op. cit., pp. 77-78.
33. Well stated by McGregor, ibid., pp. 78-79.
34. Cadoux, op. cit., pp. 114-15. Eliot, op. c't.,
pp. 145-47, has suggested that several years were needed
to effect the change-over. It seems reasonable.
35. Ath. Pol. 22. 2. Sealy, op. cit., pp. 155-80, has
suggested dating the reforms to 502/1 and their coming
into effect to 501/0. Cf. Eliot, op. cit., p. 146, n. 18.
36. Hignett, op. cit., pp. 169-73.
37. Cf. Busolt-Swoboda, pp. 848-49, esp. 848, n. 3.
38. Hignett, op. cit., p. 77.
39. Burn, op. cit., pp. 284-85.
40. Hands, op. cit., pp. 71-74. The story of Cleisthenes'
ostracism, Aelian VH 13. 24, may well be based on a
hasty misreading of Philochorus, FGrH, III b, 328 F 30,
or some similar statement.
41. I doubt that the number forty would be changed
until now. Four tribes electing ten each, then ten tribes
electing four each. After 487/6 each tribe elected ten (or
fifty at first, later ten). M. Lang, op. cit., pp. 87-89, sug-
gests that the demesmen of each tribe selected fifty men.
From this reservoir of 500 were drawn the tribes' ten
candidates for the archontate (100 all told) and those wil-
ling to be allotted other offices. This at least has the virtue
of allowing the 500 of the Ath. Pol. to stand.