N. 5 – 2006 – Memorie
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ATHENIAN ARCHONSHIP
AS AN INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC LAW
In any ancient
polis the supreme magistracy was one of the main institutes of the public law.
It took a key place in the power hierarchy. So it deserves a very attentive
study. Regrettably, in the Greek world we have only extremely scarce data on
supreme magistracies in most city-states. The exception is
The
Athenian archonship was an institute that did not remained static but was in
the process of evolution and modification for a long time. The aim of the
present paper is to characterize briefly these changes in the history of the
archonship, to demonstrate various problems and complexities existing in
connection with the institution, and to try solving some of the problems.
The
history of the archonship is known better than history of supreme magistracies
in other Greek city-states, because we have such a valuable source as the
Aristotelian “Constitution of Athens”. In the beginning of this
treatise the author gives an excursus on the emergence of the board of archons
(Ath. pol. 3). And in the conclusive
part of the book Aristotle depicts in detail functions and prerogatives that
the archons of the Late Classical Athens had (Ath. pol. 55-59). Aristotle based his account both on his own
observations and on the work of several generations of the Atthidographers, the
local historians of
Surely
studying Aristotelian data in the “Constitution of Athens” is not
without implicit difficulties. The style of the narration is very compressed,
and so some passages are not clear and easy to interpret (e.g., Ath. pol.
3.3). Furthermore, Aristotle, like any other ancient writer, was not free of
bias and inaccuracies, and so his accounts need critical evaluation. Last (not
least), the very beginning of the treatise is lost, so we have to reconstruct
first stages of the archonship’s evolution through other sources, which
are later and less authentic (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pausanias, Eusebius
the church historian, etc.). There is also epigraphic material, first of all
the Athenian archon-list for the 7th – 5th
centuries B.C., that was situated as a marble stele at the Agora of
Athens; but only its small fragments are preserved to our time[3].
The
Athenian archonship, like the supreme magistracy in any other polis (e.g. like
the Roman consulate), emerged from the ancient institution of kingship.
However, as far as we can judge, the archonship in
The
Athenian kingship in the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. was in the hands
of the so-called Codridae-Medontidae dynasty. During several subsequent centuries
the character and volume of their power suffered significant changes, which led
to deterioration of these rulers’ status and to restriction of their
prerogatives. By a combination of data of Aristotle and data of other authors
we can obtain the following picture.
From
some unknown[4]
but in any case early date the title of the rulers changed: Athenian kings (basileis) became archons. Probably the
change was effectuated not through some legal act, but by a purely empirical
way: the new title gradually became more common than the old one. For some time
the two titles were used in parallel or in the combination “the King
Archon”. Strictly speaking, the term “archon” (ruler) was
broader in its meaning than the term “basileus”.
At the
same stage kingship became elective instead of hereditary. Monarchs turned into
magistrates of the emerging polis. To be true, during several centuries they
were elected only from the Medontidae family. But now every new king (archon)
came to power not automatically, as earlier, but through a sanction of the
State (embodied in the aristocratic elite sitting in the Areopagus Council).
The term of archonship still continued to be life-long (Arist. Ath. pol. 3.1; Paus.
6.19.13).
The list
of life-long Athenian archons is preserved by Eusebius (Chron. I.189 sqq. Schoene);
it goes back to Castor, a Hellenistic historian (FGH
As to
our opinion, the list is in general quite believable. It includes[5]
the following persons (after Codrus): Medon, Acastus, Archippus, Thersippus,
Phorbas, Megacles, Diognetus, Pherecles, Thespieus, Agamestor, Aeschylus,
Alcmeon. Some of these names are not proper to the Medontidae, but rather to
other aristocratic families (the Alcmaeonidae, the Philaidae). It is perhaps
due to the fact that Medontid archons took wives from other families, and so
names proper to these families found its way into the Medontid onomastical fund[6].
Further
“breaking up” of the Athenian kingship, its transition from
monarchy to collegial polis magistracy, went in several parallel directions.
First, the term of archon’s power began to shorten. In 753 B.C. it was
reduced from life-long to ten-year-long (Arist.
Ath. pol. 3.1; cf. Paus. 4.13.7).
The last life-long archon was some Alcmeon son of Aeschylus; he ruled only two
years. Was he removed from power in the course of the reform? Or maybe he was
weak and ill ruler, died soon after his ascension, and it became the immediate
cause for the reform?
Some
decades later, in 683 B.C. the next and final step in this direction was done:
the term of archonship became one-year-long. The tradition preserved the name
of the first annual archon: Creon. From this time the new order consolidated
steadily. An annual archon surely was already by no means a monarch. Besides,
now the supreme magistrate was also the eponymous magistrate.
Second,
the monopoly of the Medontidae family to the archonship was eliminated. Now any
of eupatrids, members of the highest Athenian nobility, could became an archon.
According to the traditional chronology, this change took place ca. 713 B.C.,
in the end of Hippomenes’ reign. Hippomenes was a ten-year-long archon
and is said to have executed cruelly his own daughter and so provoked common
indignation (Diogenian. 3.1; cf. Arist. Ath. pol. epit. 3; Diod. 8.22.1). Allegedly, he was
dismissed from the office, and so the rule of Medontidae came to its end. To be
sure, not all in this story can be considered believable; it has some obvious
features of an etiological legend. But the very fact of broadening the circle
of candidates to archonship seems to be above any doubt. Athenian aristocrats
grew stronger and stronger, and they more and more drove the former royal
dynasty away from real power. Already in the 7th and early 6th centuries we can
see archons from main eupatrid families: the Philaidae (Miltiades[7],
Cypselus[8]),
the Pisistratidae (Pisistratus the Elder, the archon of 669/8 B.C.[9]),
the Alcmeonidae (Megacles[10]).
Of course, members of the Codridae also could became archons (such were,
e.g., Solon and Dropides), but now such cases were rather exceptions than a
rule.
The
third (and the most important) trend was reduction of the volume of the supreme
magistrate’s power. One of the main features of the emerging polis
statehood was prohibition for any single citizen to concentrate in his hands
too wide prerogatives. The power began to be divided, in order to match the
principle of equality. It was the aristocracy who especially insisted on this
principle in the Archaic period. Archaic aristocratic society was a
“society of peers” who tried not to allow any of them to be in a
position of “the first man”[11].
Exactly for this reason they finished the rule of ancient kings.
Other
supreme archon offices were introduced beside the royal one. To all
appearances, Aristotle is right when defining the exact order of formation of
the archons’ board (Ath. pol.
3.2-4): the basileus, then the polemarch, then the archon as such (the
magistrate who was later named the first archon or the eponymous archon), and,
last, the six thesmothetes. Only for this later magistracy the time of
establishment can be ascertained: it was in the 7th century B.C., after the
introduction of the annual archonship. In the second half of the 7th century
the board of the nine archons was already in place. E.g., Dracon, the law-giver
of 621 B.C., was a thesmotete (Paus. 9.36.8).
At this stage archons were appointed to their offices by the Areopagus (Ath. pol. 8.2)[12],
and it was quite normal for an aristocratic polis. Besides, the Areopagus by
appointing archons took care about “purity” of its own membership.
This council was composed of ex-archons. An archon could hold his post only
once in his life.
The next
reform of the Athenian archonship is connected with Solon. In 594 B.C. he was
appointed the eponymous archon. His appointment was extraordinary, and its
exact mechanism is by no means clear. It was in the course of the Solonian
reforms that the mechanism of appointing archons underwent serious changes.
There are some contradictions in the sources (Thuc. 6.54.6; Arist. Ath. pol. 8.1; 13.2; 22.5; Arist.
Pol. 1274a 1 sqq.; 15 sqq.)[13].
Some authors speak of selecting post-Solonian archons by lot. But it seems most
probable that since Solon archons were elected by the Assembly. In other words,
now the personal composition of the board was defined not by the Areopagus but
by the demos. We suppose that in 594 B.C. Solon, for the first time in the
Athenian history, was elected to the archon’s post by the whole citizen
body. It was an extraordinary measure, but since that moment it became a normal
one. This is the essence of Solon’s reform of the archonship.
Members
of not all four Solonian property classes had the right to be elected archons. Pentakosiomedimnoi
(the first class) certainly did; zeugitai (the third class) and thetes
(the fourth class) certainly did not. As to hippeis (the second class),
they either had such a right from Solon’s times or obtained it later, but
in any case before 457 B.C. (Ath. pol.
26. 2).
In
post-Solonian
In the
period of Pisistratidae’s tyranny the importance of archonship was in
some decrease. Now the archon was not the first person in the State: there was
the tyrant above him. To all appearances, neither Pisistratus nor Hippias
undertook any changes in the institution in question. They only tried always to
have some of their supporters at the archon’s posts. Hippias himself and
his son Pisistratus the Younger were eponymous archons, and beside them –
some loyal aristocrats, such as Clisthenes, Miltiades and others[15].
After
the overthrow of tyranny in 510 B.C. the role of archonship in
Clisthenes’
democratic reforms had almost no influence on the archonship. Only the tenth
member (the secretary) was added to the board, to correlate its quantity with
the number of the ten new Clisthenian tribes. So archonship was incorporated in
the political system of the Athenian democracy. For example, the procedure of
ostracism was conducted under archons’ supervision (Philochorus FGH 328 F
30).
However,
during Clisthenes’ reforms the board of generals (strategoi) was established (Arist.
Ath. pol. 22.2)[17].
Initially generals were no rivals to archons and considered officers
subordinate to them. Still in 490 B.C. the polemarch archon was (even if
nominally) the chief of the army, generals were under him (Herod. 6.109-110). Later the correlation of the two boards changed
cardinally.
The
fatal moment for the Athenian archonship was the reform of 487 B.C. (Ath. pol. 22.5)[18].
From this date archons were not elected by common vote, but selected by lot. It
was this measure that undermined the political significance of the institution.
Now not prominent statesmen, as earlier, but fortuitous people became archons.
The new archonship couldn’t rival generalship, as generals continued to
be elected by the people’s vote and to be responsible representatives of
the demos. Moreover, a person can be an archon only once a life, but it was
possible to be a general without any such limitations.
The
political significance of archonship fell quickly, but its authority remained
for a long time. In 457 B.C. zeugitai were permitted to be archons.
Later even thetes de facto could be. It means that archons’
offices were still considered prestigious. Nobody would solicit a post with no
prestige.
In
principle, even in Late Classical Athens the role of archonship in the system
of the polis should not be underestimated. It is no accident that Aristotle
describes work of archons in such a detail. But the institution eventually
seized to be a political one. This is the grand total of its history.