Herodotus, the Cylonian Conspiracy and the ΠΡΥΤΑΝΙΕΣΤΩΝΝΑΥΚΡΑΡΩΝ Author(s): S. D. Lambert Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 35, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1986), pp. 105-112 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435951 . Accessed: 07/05/2013 16:47 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. . Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MISZELLEN HERODOTUS, THE CYLONIAN CONSPIRACY AND THE HPYTANIEY: TQN NAYKPAPQN I. Inadequacy of Previous Views Tos',ToU; &LV0T&IL tV V 01 TQUT'VtEg T6V VCUXQ'QQV, O'L AEQ ?VEVLOVT6TE Tag 'Afftva5, v. 71.2) The JtQvUTvLE; TCOv vaxUQoQWv mentioned by Herodotus in his very brief account of the Cylonian conspiracy should provide us with a rare and valuable insight into the constitution of pre-Solonian Athens. Unfortunately, however, they have been shrouded in controversy and uncertainty. I should like to indicate the inadequacy of previous interpretations of this passage and suggest a new hypothesis. At the core of the problem is the question of how we are to explain Herodotus' statement that the 7tQuTvLe;gt6)V VaUXQ6aWV . . . ?VEROV T6TE tag 'Asvag in the light of Thucydides'clear assertion in his account of the affair (i 126.8): 01 waQXOvTEt T6V 7TXLTLoXV oiVVE't T6TE bE T& atoXX& E7tQcmiov. Thucydides must surely be right; as Ath. Pol. remarks when discussing the crisis of Damasias (c. 580), p xai b6kov 6T1 RyEo4iTv ELXevb8vcaitv o a6QXv qxtavovTatyaQ atel 0TaMtaLOVTEg JEEQi TaCUTn T;g ClQXn. (Ath. Pol. xiii 2) For the naukraries the evidence is clear that they were financial districts of Attica, with an officer called a naukraros in charge of each.' For the presidents of the naukraroi, however, there is not only no other evidence to suggest they held political power, there is no evidence other than this passage that they even existed. Thucydides is clearly and uncontroversially right that it was the archons who 'held power' at this time. Herodotus' apparently contradictory statement demands an explanation. The prevailing orthodoxy' has been to suppose that Herodotus' version is trying to shift the blame for the Cy;onian curse, which was to plague the Alcmeonids for two centuries, from the Alcmeonids (for Megacles,3 an Alcmeonid, was archon at the time) and onto the presidents of the naukraroi. The Thucydidean version is seen as a firm rebuttal of this excuse. The idea that Herodotus and Thucydides are in direct conflict on this matter, however, has been rightly questioned by Jacoby and Wust :4 Thucydides' account is scarcely less apologetic than Herodotus'. Thucydides does not even mention the Alcmeonids and he makes the nine archons collectively responsible, not Megacles as eponymous archon. More fatal to this view of Herodotus, EJlEyylJOlJ tXTV fTOvat O 6EXv (POVE1) C 1J be CtUU0g iTL' EXEL'AkxR-wv(&og. (Hdt. Ath. Pol. viii 3; Phot. s.v. vctxLQca(ta. For full bibliography of this much discussed topic see B. Jordan, CSCA iii (1970) 153 n. 1 and H. Hommel, RE xvi (1935) 1938-52; to which should be added R. Thomsen, Eisphora (1964) 119-46; J. Velissaropoulos, Les naukleres grecs (1981); P. J. Rhodes, Commentary on Ath. Pol. (1981) 79-84, 151-3; J. C. Billigmeier & M. S. Dusing, 'The origin and function of the naukraroi at Athens. An etymological and historical explanation' TAPA cxi (1981) 11-16; A. Andrewes, CAH3 iii 3 (1982) ch. 43 368-9. 3 Plut. Sol. xii 1, from Ath. Pol. (Epit. Herakl. ii). It is not clear if there were other Alcmeonid archons this year as well. ' F. Jacoby, Atthis, (1949) 186-8; F. R. Wust, Historia vi (1957) 176-91; supported by Jordan, loc. cit. Historia, Band XXXV/I (1986) ?) Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 106 Miszellen however,is the obvious objection,broughtby Wust, that Herodotusclearlydoes not shift the blamefrom the Alcmeonidsonto the presidentsof the naukraroi.It was the presidents,he says, who persuadedthe Cyloniansto leavethe aiyakRa, to which they had resortedas suppliantsafter the failureof their attempt.The Cylonianswere to be liableto any punishmentsave death.The responsibilityfor killing them, on the other hand, (&) lay with the Alcmeonids:acLTLTlEXEL This is no exculpation.5 'AkxREtwv(&ag. Two further,equallyunsatisfactoryvarietiesof explanationof Herodotushavebeenattempted. The firstis to resolvethe difficultyby makingthe presidentsof the naukraroiactuallyequivalent to the archons.The idea is a very old one, to be found first in Harpocration,6 and revivedby J. H. WrightandWust.'Wrightindicatedthe possiblitythatthe archonsat Athenscouldwell have been known as 3tQUTvLE; at the time of Cylon.8Herodotusdidn'tknow this andmisunderstood the tQuJTvE; who occured in the version of the story he heard, thinkingthey must be the tQutavLEg TWvvauxQaQwv, who were the only 7tQUTavLEg he knew of. The hypothesis is overingenious. Herodotus is just as unlikely to have known about 7tQUTCvLe;g 'ud vauxQEQwvas he is aboutold namesfor archons.Surelythe simplerhypothesismust be the more attractive,that the TdV vauxQaeov appearedas such in the versionHerodotusknew. Wiist's version of this hypothesis is similarlyartificial,and implausible.He combines the statementof Philochorus(FGH 328 f 20) that therehad been 51 membersof the Areopaguswith the fact that therewere probably48 naukraroi9 and, excludingthe thesmothetai,3 archons.The naukraroiwere the pre-SolonianCouncil, their presidentsthe three archons.We do, however, havea certainamountof other evidencepertainingto both naukraroiand Areopagus;thereis no suggestionthatthey were equivalent.The Areopaguswas composedof ex-archons,the naukraroi financialofficials,equatedby some with the laterdemarchs.'0 The finalunsatisfactorysolutionto the problemis thatof Jordan."He resortsto emendationof JtQUlEaVLES the text'2 and would read E'VE'OVTOTrOE (understood as 'were collecting taxes') for the usual EVE[LOV TOTE. The corruptionis supposedto have taken place by haplographyand the 'correct' readingis supportedby a singleweak manuscript,MS Sancroft(S). Rhodes'3has alreadypointed Jacoby is right that acLTLq EXEL is non-commital(loc. cit. 187), 'The Alcmeonidswere held responsible'; but this is no exculpation. 6 Harp., Suid. s.v. vauxQaQQLW... ya1Q T0oEaXCtLoV TObg aQxovTCtg VCUXQaEQOVs E?XyOV, d xai of Herodotus. 'HQ6o0Tog EV ' L(TOQLWV 5qk0i. Clearlya misunderstanding 7J. H. Wright, HSCP iii (1892) 1-74 esp. 28-33; Wiist, loc. cit. Further discussion and rejection of their arguments by Jordan, loc. cit. 157-8. 8 p. 32 n. 1. 9 Ath. Pol. viii 3. 10 Ath. Pol. xxi 5; Pollux viii 108; Phot. s.v. vauxQcatQ(a.In fact it is not clear that we are justified in concluding anything from the inscrutable statement of Philochorus (f. 20): . . . 5oSTEQOV 6U 7tXELOVwV yEyovEv JTEvTTIXovTa xaL nq EVO5, tIV 'AQeLou Et zacyou iovXk, EV6taTQLO6V, 'O TOUTEOTLV E'(lI[EV, XiL ' Et &V6Qv V :EQcaVITEQOwV 7tkOVTWL xaL ILWt oW(QovL 6LacpEQ6vTo)V. b loc. cit. Billigmeier & Dusing build their etymological speculations on an acceptance of Jordan's hypothesis that the naukraroi were in charge of the temple/treasury. Rejection of Jordan's hypothesis weakens their case but does not necessarily falsify it. 12 Stein suggested another emendation, 3QuTa6VLEg ITrV vaUxQaQCwv for tQUT&VlE; tJv vauxQaQwv. This is to be rejected since the heads of the naukraries are everywhere attested as VaUxQaQOL(Ath. Pol. viii 3; Cleidemus FGH 323f8); the emendation produces not clarification but a unique and unexpected form of reference. 13 loc. cit., 152. I would not accept his second objection, that the conflict between Hdt. and Thuc. is certain and so fatal to this view. This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Miszellen 107 out one objection to this theory, that in the texts cited by Jordan v?REo*hat is used of men who draw revenues for their own enjoyment, not state officials. The emendation also introduces intolerable obscurity into the run of thought in the sentence. As people who "vE?OV Tag 'ANva;, it is clear that the presidents of the naukraroi will have had the authority to negotiate with the Cylonians and make an agreement with them as they did. It is not clear why financial officials should take such action, however, nor does the fact, as told us by Herodotus, that the presidents were 'collecting Athens' revenues at the time' or that they 'used to collect Athens' revenues' tell us why they were in a position to negotiate with the Cylonians. The two activities have no clear connection with one another,'4 whereas Herodotus clearly meant them to, and they clearly do on the traditionalreading,?VE?oV. II. A New Hypothesis My suggestion is that the TeT? in Herodotus is much more specific than has been generally understood; that it refers to the very time of Cylorn'sattempted coup. At that time, I would like to suggest, the archons were absent and for this reason the presidents of the naukraroi were responsible for dealing with the crisis at Athens in the first instance. The hypothesis would illuminate the affair in several respects. First, if the archons could be expected to be absent this would explain why Cylon, and probably Delphi,'" chose this moment to stage the coup. Delphi did not tend to give empty advice and would have known that Cylon's chances of success would be greater in the absence of the archons, the most powerful likely opposition. Herodotus' account is extremely brief, a footnote to his story of Cleomenes, Isagoras and Cleisthenes to explain the origin of the Cylonian curse. He clearly could have said more.'6 This hypothesis enables us to fill out the version behind Herodotus' footnote with greater plausibility than the suggestions made hitherto: the presidents of the naukraroi promised the conspirators that they would get away with their lives, for at that time the archon, Megacles, and his colleagues were absent and the presidents of the naukraroi were in charge at Athens. On their return the archons ignored this promise and had the conspirators put to death: cpoVdvOctL&E CaTov acLLTLY EL 'AXx[iovL'ag. Where were the archons? Two possibilities are ready to hand. The first, and most obvious, is that they were at the Olympic Games. Thucydides tells us that Cylon's coup coincided with the Olympic festival, and this is just the sort of factor Cylon might have been expected to take into account. Unfortunately our evidence as to who went on Olympic theoriai is very weak. Indeed there is no secure evidence known to me as to the identity of any member of an official Athenian theoria to Olympia. The only possible exception is Thuc. vi 16.2: dVT'lv tO6XLV (Alcibiades speaking) ... oLyt'EQEXXivew xaiL1CEQ bvvvELi'VCELLV EVO'RLoaV [LELlO) ... (he entered 7 chariots and came 1st, 2nd and 4th). TqO)'Et4 blacQEJtELTnj 'OkXi tl,a ??a @'ag 14 Jordan(173-4) explainsthe action of the TdV vavxQaQwv by seeing them as TQut6vLe predecessorsof the tamiai,of whom Suidas says TaCtCt oL lTa ?V T4 L'EQ T'n 'Aftqv&g 'EV axQotXEL aXCL xac co (pUXcaTTOUOL, XQ1WLaTa To ayaXZc 'ni 'Ahvax. 'LEQa TE XaQL6iOoLa Thus the 7tQ1UTCVLEg 'were simply the authority duly qualified to enter the treasure chamber of the temple and to protect the agalma of the goddess by expelling the intruders and restoring order.' The tamiai were surely older than Solon (like the archons in Ath. Pol. vii 3, viii 1) as Ferguson realised (The Treasurers of Athena (1932) 4) although this is doubted by Jordan to suit his hypothesis.In any casethe forceof oiLtEQ EVEROV TOTE Tag 'Afvag in Hdt. would be intolerably obscure. 15 For Cylon acted on Delphic advice (Thuc. i 126.4). 16 M. Lang, CP 1xii (1967) 243-9, bases her paper on the misguided idea that Hdt. would have told us more if he had known it. This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Miszellen 108 If Alcibiadeswas a memberof the officialAtheniandelegationthis would be evidenceof a high magistrateservingon a theoria,for Alcibiadeswas probablystrategosat the time."7The word 'theoria',however,can also be used with respectto individualsattendinga festivalin a private and here it seems most naturalto understandAlcibiades'theoriaas havingbeen of a capacity,"8 competitivenature,not that he was also a memberof the officialAtheniandelegation. We do, however,haveone piece of evidenceas to the compositionof the Atheniantheoriato the PythianGames,evidencewhich is highly suggestivefor the parallelcase of the Olympics: TovTOvLxaL xxv &XXwv'ANvcxvOotvOw T 5ELVCtxai OxXt 1L' "YoUV?OV &uvTiOv yCEQUROWv i TOV5 TaXaCElMQOUg n&OXELV cI2)XE'Cg, XUFTE 'TE TOVu 'EX Tg OUX 1?W3EQOU'gn1?TE TOu Eig Tct Hl5?ha nF`LipaL, &XX'a3ooTvaL Tig 3aTQ'LOv tEiQLCg ... (Dem. xix De &%toftfTCEg falsa legatione128). Fromthis it is clearthat in the 4th centurythe Pythiantheoriatraditionallyincludedmembersof the boule, and the thesmothetai.Now the Panhellenicprestigeof the Olympic Gameswas older andgreaterthanthatof the Pythianfestival.The PythianswereremodelledalongOlympiclinesin 582.The statusof the Olympicsas a functionof the internationalGreekaristocracywas secureby the 7th century: the victor lists recordsuccessfulcompetitorsfrom a diversityof cities of the motherlandand colonies. Athens achievedher first known victory in 696 and we know of two otherAthenianvictorsbetweenthatdateandthe victoryof Cylon himselfin 640. 19 BeforeSolon there was no boule. If in the classicalperiod the Pythian theoria included thesmothetaiand representativesof the boule, there is thus a good chance that the Olympic theoriain the 7th centurywill have includedthe other threearchonsas well.20 Jameson,however,has suggestedthat there was anotherversionof the events. Accordingto Thucydidesthe Delphic oracle had advisedCylon to make his attemptat 'the greatfestivalof Zeus';21 Cylon assumedthe Olympics,he did not thinkof the greatAthenianfestivalof Zeus,the Diasia.A remarkablecoincidencein the very next sentencein ThucydidesledJamesonto suppose thattherewas in facta versionof events(whichThucydidesis refuting)accordingto whichCylon did makehis attemptat the Diasia,for we now know thatthe Diasiawas held at Agrae,justacross the Ilissos, and Thucydidessays (i 126.7): ob 'AhvaioL nQoOxaftEtlOiEvoL aoiiogevOL 'PO io av Te tav i Ex Tdv a'EyQv 'En' aUtoi xaL EoJtoXLQXOVV. This sentencecouldbe transferedwholesalefroma versionof eventsin whichthe coup took place at the Diasia and the Athenianpeople cameen massefrom Agrae(Ex Tixv 'AyQwv),where they werecelebratingthe Diasia,to help againstthe Cylonians.By the 5th centurythe oraclemay have been one of the only remainingsecurepiecesof publicevidenceas to what actuallyhappened.It may have been forgotten,however,which of the two festivalsof Zeus the oraclehad meantand which of the two Cylon had thoughtit had meant.It is also a remarkablecoincidencethat it is 17 Alcibiades' Olympic victory is securely dated to 416. It is clear Alcibiades was strategos in 417/6 (Hatzfeld, Alcibiade 118). Unfortunately there is controversy over the exact term of office of the strategos (Rhodes, op. cit. 536-7), but it seems likely that Alcibiades was also strategos in 416/ 5. Certainly the Sicilian expedition left at the end of the archon-year 416/5 (Isae. vi 14); v. Hatzfeld, 122 n. 6. 18 E.g. Plato Crito 52b: ... Socrates stayed at home ... xai oiUt' F'WtftEwQLav IUO)toT' ?x TTn aXkot ave1 otL. Cf. Soph. OT 1491; 6v . . . 6Xoi ?e o"L a ria 'Iog Mg6EwS ?ijXfeg, Aristoph. Pax 523. '9 696: Pantakles (Moretti, Olympionikai 63); 672: Euribates; 644: Stomas. 20 That there were theoriai at this time is prima facie likely; it is also indicated by Androtion (FGH 324f36) quoting a Solonian law for payments to the theoroi to Delphi 'from the naukraric funds'. 21 Jameson, 'The Sacrificial Calendar from Erchia'. BCH lxxxix (1965) 167-72. Thuc. i. 126.4. This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Miszellen 109 quiteclearthatif thecouphadtakenplaceattheDiasiathearchonswouldalsohavebeenabsent, for as Thucydidessays, the Diasiawas a festivalcelebratedby the whole people (?v T' tav6b?i&E which will naturally have included the archons. These two coincidences are remarkable and Jameson's hypothesis and mine are thus mutually supportive. As for my hypothesis the apparent fact that on both versions of events the archons could be expected to be absent from Athens is indicative of a notable example of Delphic oracular skill: whichever festival of Zeus Cylon chose the fact that the archons would be absent made his attempt more likely to succeed. If he did not succeed, however, the oracle could always claim that he had chosen the wrong festival.22 I would argue therefore, that it was correctly remembered (because of the oracle) that the coup took place at a festival of Zeus, and that Herodotus preserves correctly the memory that it was the presidents of the naukraroi who reacted to the coup in the first instance. This was because whichever festival of Zeus the attempt took place at, Olympics or Diasia, the archons were absent from Athens. There is only one problem: why doesn't Thucydides mention the presidents of the naukraroi? Now it is not clear that Thucydides in his account was setting out in every respect specifically to correct Herodotus. We have already seen that on the matter of the responsibility of the Alcmeonids the two accounts do not differ substantially. Furthermore it is not clear from Herodotus whether he understood the attempted coup to have taken place at the Diasia or the Olympics. If Jameson is right, Thucydides is contradicting a version in which it was explicitly claimed that the coup took place at the Diasia. It is clear, however, that at 126.11 Thucydides is contradicting, presumably intentionally, either Herodotus or a version similar to Herodotus' in that it attributed the raising of the suppliants from the statue (in Thucydides' version the altar) to the presidents of the naukraroi. Thucydides expressly attributes this to the archons,: ; 6vaOTT oavTEg aQuTOvuOiLTlOV 'AfTivaLkWv E711TTQa EVOL Tv PUkaxqv, ; EQWOdV CtTCLYay6VTE; CEnEXTELVaV &E.o0hVr'jXoVTa; EV T1 LEQ4i, 'P' 4 [ir6EV xCaxovJUOLYIOOUOMV, The reference of oiLE'7ELTETQCfiEVOL TrIv cpuXkcxivhas been indicated a few sentences earlier: fV-?OoIL), XQ VOU 6 OiLAfvaCoL E'YYLYVORE'VOJ TOL5 EVVEcE CLQ>XOt2ITVtl? 6LTQ1E?aVTE; Tfl JtQooGEt L utijik ov oi 3oXXoi, TQ12XO'REvoL oQoT0L&LQ&EL u (VUkaxsv xai TO at6v avCoxEcT0 av aQL(JTa bLayLyvwoxWoLv (Thuc. i 126.8). The similarity of Thucydides' expression to Herodotus' does indicate direct contradiction of an Herodotean version, perhaps that of Herodotus himself. It must be the case that Thucydides, quite understandably, misunderstood this version to imply that it was usually the nQvT&vLEg l(TWV vauxQ6Qwv who iVELOV T101 tciS 'ANvac. Thucydides can not have been aware from any other source of the real nature of the r6le played by the presidents of the naukraroi. It is not of course necessarily the case that Thucydides knew and sifted every conceivable version, oral or written; it is likely none the less that the Herodotean version, perhaps because of its having been written down and standardised by Herodotus, had become the standard version preserving the memory of the role played by the presidents of the naukraroi, and preserving it in such a way that it was liable to be misunderstood. Hence the absence of the presidents from Thucydides' and subsequent versions. It is nevertheless noteworthy that although Thucydides himself implicitly denies the presidents of the naukraroi the role he understood to be attributed to them by the Herodotean version, his 22 Cf. W. G. Forrest, BCH lxxx (1956) 39-40; citing H. W. Parke, Delphic Oracle (1939), 138. We also have epigraphical evidence of the archons serving en masse at the Pythais. The evidence is very late, however, and the Pythais was in any case a specifically Athenian festival, but held in Delphi. Deubner, Attische Feste (1932) 203; Boethius, Die Pythais (1918). We have evidence relating to 4 theoriai. There seem to have been no archons on the first, in 138/7, but they did serve on the last three, in 128/7 (Fouilles de Delphes, iii 2,3), 106/5 (Fouilles iii 4,5) and 97/6 (Fouilles iii 2). Boethius (p. 122) thought this probably represented a revival of ancient practice. This can hardly be taken as evidence for Olympic theoriai in the 7th century however. This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 110 Miszellen version as it stands does leave room for the possibility of their having reacted to the coup in the first instance, for as we have seen, he says there was a lengthy siege (Xeovou &?'yytyvoRt'voU . . ) before the archons were entrusted with the supervision of the affair. This leaves plenty of time for the archons to return from Olympia and take over charge from the presidents of the naukraroi. The presidents of the naukraroi, therefore, reacted to the coup in the first instance. The state of the tradition is such, however, that we can't define this any further. They may, for instance, have been responsible for the original opposition and perhaps the supervision of the siege (if there was a siege) until the archons returned from Olympia. The Diasia version, however, will have implied much briefer activity, since Agrae was but a short step from the acropolis. Quick action to foil the coup and promise the conspirators their lives, perhaps, all in the space of a few hours. The oracle at Delphi, then, securely implied that the coup of Cylon had taken place at a 'great festival of Zeus'. Whichever festival the oracle had 'intended', Olympics or Diasia, had not been the one chosen by Cylon. We have reason to suppose that, whichever festival Cylon did choose, the archons will have been absent from Athens. Herodotus preserves for us the memory that it was therefore not the archons but the presidents of the naukraroi who reacted to the coup in the first instance, but he preserved it in a manner liable to misunderstanding and contradiction. In subsequent accounts the rolc of the presidents of the naukraroi was thus omitted. III. Naukraroi I should like in conclusion not to indulge in a thorough discussion of the naukraroi, merely to draw some threads together and make some suggestions. With our earliest evidence on the Cylonian conspiracy dating from over 150 years after the events certainty as to what actually happened is beyond our reach. The vagaries of oral tradition and controversy severely, in many respects hopelessly muddied the facts. The very unexpectedness and obscurity of Herodotus' reference to the part played in the affair by the presidents of the naukraroi, however, compels belief. It is clear that naukraroi and their presidents were obsolete by the time of Herodotus. That they should be a fiction seems unlikely. It is surely more likely that their r6le in the affair was something correctly passed on, perhaps uncontroversially, in the tradition about the conspiracy, a tradition which was kept alive through the 6th and 5th centuries by its continual relevance to the politics of the day; and that Herodotus recorded the fact faithfully. The only problem was to provide a satisfactory hypothesis to explain how Herodotus could have come to say of them23that they E"VE[LOVTOTE TC' 'A-vag, and that we have now done. On a broader perspective, however, difficult questions remain to be answered: what was the nature of the power exercised by the presidents of the naukraroi and how did they come to have that power? The function of the naukraroi themselves is unanimously attested to have been financial; as Ath. Pol. puts it (viii 3)24: TIV 6' ET'L TdwV VauXQaQL6V E?i(70Q&g xCEiTatg 6awtvca atQXi XcXftoTrjXULa VaExQXaQOt, TETayEVi 7TQOg TE Tag TC; yLyvo0tEvCgt A further aspect of their activities concerned ships. It may be that this is the etymological root of the word, and hence the functional root as well. We will imagine that Athens' need for a fleet was the occasion of the introduction of a taxation system.25 Alternatively the root may conceivably 3 That is the T6V vauxQa'wv. Jordan is right to emphasise (p. 173) that 7QUTadVLEg grammatically vauxtalQwv could as easily be the antecedent of otL tEQas nQUetavLe;. On my hypothesis, of course, the prytanies take charge, not the naukraroi themselves. 24 Cf. Cleidemus FGH 323f8; Androtion FGH 324f36. 25 The exact date can not be settled with certainty. I would suspect (with Wilamowitz, Ar. und Athen ii 54) a mid-8th century origin, when archaeological evidence indicates a naval boom followed by sudden disinterest in naval affairs in the late geometric period and continuing into the 7th century. This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Miszellen 111 be connected not with ships but with temples - the original state treasury.6 Even those who support this alternative etymology, however, do not doubt the early association of the naukraroi with ships, for it is an association not merely suggested by etymology. One other fact is noteworthy, namely that at the time of Solon (and this was not something that Solon saw fit to change) Ath. Pol. tells us that the naukraries, like the trittyes, were subdivisions of the phyle (Ath. Pol. viii 3): CX&r Tr5 pUXi1 ExaoTflg noov vevCPTjvCt av tTQE, vCJxQacQaL bi 6wbexc TQLtTTVF; xao' iX&tonTV. These factors, taken together, suggest two more spheres of activity for the naukraroi. If Ath. Pol. is right in asserting that the property classes were of pre-Solonian origin, then these will surely have been supervised by the naukraroi.27There may well have been a connection between the introduction of these classes and the introduction of a hoplite army, an innovation which must have taken place in the course of the 7th century. We have no firm evidence on Athenian military organisation before Cleisthenes.28 It is surely likely, however, that it was based on the 4 Ionian phylai,'9 just as, after Cleisthenes, it was based on the 10 new phylai. All we know of the preCleisthenic trittyes is the name of one of them, 'Leukotainioi',Y 'white-ribboned'; surely a reference to the fact that they will have had white ribbons on their spears as a militarv distinguishing mark.3" Both naukraryand trittys were subdivisions of the phyle. Was the naukrarya subdivision of the trittys ? If so, then I should imagine that the naukrarieswill have pre-existed the trittyes and at the introduction of hoplite tactics four naukraries will have been combined to form each trittys. So perhaps naukraries could also have been subdivisions of the trittyes on the field. In any case it is clear that the naukraroi will have been involved with the financial, naval and military organisation of 7th century Athens: they will have been officials of some significance.2 It was not all the naukraroi, however, who were involved in the affair, but their presidents, Billigmeier & Dusing, loc. cit., connecting naukraroi with vac6, 'temple', rather than vai<, 'ship'. Cf. Jordan, The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period (1975) 6-9. Pollux viii 108 for the association with ships. The hypothesis of Billigmeier and Dusing is not convincing. There is no philological difficulty about connecting naukraros and naus. The two examples they give of naucompounds of naos 'temple' are both very late (one 2nd cent. A.D., the other 172 or 236 A.D.; for the latter see TAM v 1, 179). This is not impressive if contrasted with the much earlier compounds nao-, neo- etc. Koine nao- (Attic neo) seems to have undergone a late phonetic change to nau-. One also doubts whether nouns and adjectives formed from a root with a -wos suffix (naos < - naswos) can form compounds without the -o-, as simple thematisations (reformations with -o-) of a previously athematic (without -o-) noun or adjective can. Their argument that Myc. naudomo proves the point because it means 'temple-builder' and not, as normally argued, 'shipwright', is also misguided. - Domos can indeed only refer to buildings in classical Greek, but this is not a cogent argument for Mycenaean: cf. Benveniste, BSL 1955, 18f., M. Gerard, Mentions religieuses (Rome 1968) 148f. with further bibl. For these points I am entirely indebted to the kindness of Mrs. A. E. Morpurgo Davies. The support they claim from Herodotus is, of course, also invalid. 27 Ath. Pol. vii 3. Plut. Sol. xviii 1-2 does not suggest that the classes were pre-Solonian. The authority of Ath. Pol. on this point, however, is cogently defended by Rhodes, op. cit. 137-8. 28 J. H. Oliver, Hesperia xlix (1980) argues very unconvincingly that the gene were the basis of pre-Cleisthenic military organisation. 29 Siewert, Die Trittyen Attikas (1982) 154-5. 0 J. H. Oliver, Hesperia iv (1935) 21. "' Cf. Diodorus Siculus xv 52.5: 6 yQ y bOQv6 xai TaIVLcXV 3t' TE'g JtQOY?EV exOv 26 auTC 32 . Doubtless they will have been Areopagites. This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 112 Miszellen nQuiavvt;. There is an immediately striking parallel between not only the name of the officials but also the nature of their attested activity in the Cylonian affair, and the bouleutic prytanies of the classical period. For in the classical period it was the duty of the epistates of the boule and a trittys Tdjv JX(VT&vEWv(in rotation) to be on 24 hour watch 'ev Tfl 06Xp' to deal with situations as they arose and which required an immediate reaction." This is exactly the activity I have suggested is tdv vavxQtQuv. They will have been on duty to deal attested for the similarly named nQUt&aVLEq with emergency situations. Just such a situation was Cylon's attempted coup. Whether this was a permanent function or whether it only applied in the absence of the archons in the 7th century we do not know. It is surely likely, however, that in this respect the ;tQrtvtLE; TOV VatUX(QdWVwere the constitutional ancestors of the bouleutic prytanies. This does not necessarily imply that the naukraroi formed a pre-Solonian boule.34But while some aspects of Solon's boule may have been entirely new (there may not, for instance, have been any organised system for preparing business for the assembly before Solon) other functions may have been transfered to the boule from other institutions, either by Solon or later reformers. Rhodes has tentatively suggested that the bouleutic prytanies were an innovation of Ephialtes.3sThe naukraroi, however, were by this time almost certainly obsolete. Even if they survived Cleisthenes it must be doubted whether, after Cleisthenes, their functions could have been more than purely naval. In any case they will probably not have survived Themistocles' naval reform.36 It thus seems likely that it was Cleisthenes who instituted the bouleutic prytanies and transferred to them a function previously performedby the uX( vtE; T)V vaUxQOQWv.." Keble College, Oxford S. D. Lambert Ath. Pol. xliv 1 and see Rhodes ad loc. Ath. Pol. viii 4 for the Solonian boule of 400, defended cogently against sceptics by Rhodes ad loc. The Athenian Boule (1972) 17-9. 3 36 Ath. Pol. xxi 5 seems to imply the naukraroi were abolished by Cleisthenes. Cleidemus, however, (f8) implies their continuing existence after Cleisthenes. For final demise under Themistocles see F. Jacoby ad Cleidemus f8 (p. 67). and 37 I should like to thank Profs. A. Andrewes, W. G. Forrest and A. E. Morpurgo Davies, paper. this of the in preparation help generous their for Drs. P. S. Derow and D. M. Lewis 33 3 POSTUMIUS MAGNUS LEGAT EN 146 (IG2, 11,3780) -Fais une chose pour moi., ecrit Ciceron a Atticus (XIII, 30,3): -tiche de me retrouver les noms des legats qui accompagnerent Mummius; Polybe ne dit pas leurs noms; i'ai le souvenir du consulaire Albinus et de Sp. Mummius-. II s'agit de de la commission des Dix qui regla le sort de l'Achaie en 146-145 et scella la soumission de toute la Grece; Ciceron veut faire d'eux les personnages d'un dialogue philosophique'. Hors A. Postumius Albinus et Sp. Mummius, frere du ' ' 2 destructeur de Corinthe, les Dix demeurent des inconnus , ou a peu pres'. sur une epigramme (L. de tomber la surprise on a d'Athenes, lit les inscriptions on Or, quand G.2, I1,3780) ou, en plein milieu du deuxieme siecle avant notre ere, un nom romain saute aux v 'ARR6ivLov,ov bL&TiXvTvM6yvog EXEL4,wi1 3tJU6ToCt-tov qs3XaxC. yeux: 'AO(et KExQonCb't I 2 3 11continue a correspondre avec Atticus sur les Dix en XIII, 32,3 et 33,3. B. Niese, Geschichte der griech. und makedon. Staaten, 1903, vol. 3, p. 351. On nomme aussi Aurelius Orestes (Pausanias, VII, 16,1). Historia, Band XXXV/1 (1986) C Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:47:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions