AT.t HV. 



A'RCHON. 



Codrua, the last king. The Athenian* were fond of attributing to 

 Thewus the origin of their democracy ; by which probably they meant 

 that many of hi* regulation had a popular tendency, and that hia 

 general reformation of the itate, which wai favourable to that port of 

 the population which had po**eeaed no political righto, waa aoconi{niod 

 by a permanent relaxation of regal authority. (Pint, Vit. The*.' c. 25.) 

 The prerogative of the archon wan (till further limited ; T for he waa 

 mmtt reapooaible to hi* fellow citizen* for the acta of hi* government. 

 (Pant. IT. 6, 10.) Tradition told of thirteen hereditary archonx, after 

 whom, about B.C. 752, the chief magistrate wag appointed to his office 

 far ten yean, but was still at first taken from the Medontida;, or 

 deaoendanU of Itedon. We hare the name of Charope and of oil others 

 after him aa decennial archons ; but in B.C. 714 the archonship was 

 thrown open to all the order of nobles, and the last three of the decen- 

 nial archons were not of the family of Medon. (Veil. Paterc. 1, 8.) 

 Another revolution, which is placed by Mr. Grote B.C. 683, limited the 

 duration of the office to a single year, at the same time dividing the 

 charge of administration between the chief magutrate and eight others, 

 thus forming a council of state, which consisted of nine magistrates or 

 archons. Hence they are sometime* mentioned by the Greek writers 

 under the general designation of The Nine. These officers had their 

 titles and duties, of which we shall presently speak, 



when we have carried a little farther the general history of this new 



. :.--.:.:.. W. !. . ..... n !!.,' ;!. fa* .,!,!: n vv ,-! l.ke lii,- i..y i! 



[un\nmtw. the head of the government The decennial archons had 

 doubtless the same place and character, and the annual magistrates for 

 a time exercised collectively the political power before vested in a single 

 ruler. Their names and number, and in great measure the particular 

 civil duties assigned to them, remained unaltered whilst Athens con- 

 tinued to poetess an independent government ; but the course of events 

 wrought a moat important change as to their position in the state. 

 This change, to which in earlier times there was a gradual approxi- 

 mation, was effected mainly by the increased activity of the ecclesia, or 

 popular assembly, which received its first impulse from the regulations 

 of Solon, about B.C. 594, was urged on more effectually by the reforma- 

 tion of Cleiathenes (B.C. 509), and was confirmed by the consequences of 

 the Fenian war, by which the theta, or lowest class of citizens, which 

 supplied the naval strength of Athens, were taught to know their 

 power. (ArUtot, ' Polit/2, 9, 4.) From the time that the ecclesia 

 interfered habitually and directly with the government of the republic, 

 the actual minister of state was the person who enjoyed the confidence 

 of the people, which neither the office of archon nor any other office 

 could procure. The inevitable consequence was, that the archons sunk 

 from ministers of state into municipal officers of high rank. Wo have 

 thought it worth while to point attention to this fact, from having had 

 occasion to observe that young students of Athenian history are some- 

 times perplexed by the apparent inconsistency of the accounts given 

 them of the first appointment of archons with the little notice bestowed 

 upon these magistrates in the general history of the republic. They 

 read of important public measures, and of the persons who originated 

 and executed them, whilst the name of archon seldom occurs in Grecian 

 history, except as marking the year in which certain events took place. 

 (See Thucyd. ii. 2.) Pericles, without the office of archon, to which it 

 was not hia chance ever to attain, enjoyed a degree of power which waa 

 not possessed during the freedom of the republic by any other citizen. 

 Perhaps no one who read with the least attention would find the diffi- 

 culty, if he were not in some measure led to it by popular works on 

 Grecian antiquities, which too commonly present an accumulation of 

 facto and authorities without sufficiently discriminating the times to 

 which the different statements refer. 



The annual archons, from their first appointment down to the time 

 of Solon, were taken from the eupatridas, or noble*, to which da** all 

 political power seem* to have been confined. This is rather assumed 

 from what we know of the progress of civil and political society at 

 Athens, than asserted on any authority of much weight The establish- 

 ment by Solon of a ttmncracy, or government in which political power 

 was distributed with reference to piupeity, put an end to the claims of 

 noble blood ; but since the archons were by this regulation taken from 

 the wealthiest class of citizens (ol wtrraxoviofMtfum), the noblest 

 families probably still continued chiefly to supply the archons for each 

 year, till the celebrated law of Aristeides, enacted about B.C. 479, threw 

 open the office* of state to the whole body of the people. (Plut, ' Vit. 

 Arist' c. 1, and c. 22.) From this time no qualification was requisite 

 in an Athenian citizen for the office of archon but fair fame and freedom 

 from bodily defect 



The mode of appointment present* some difficulties, from the want 

 of precise information. It appears that the archon* were originally 

 elected by suffrage, and the elective franchise was probably confined to 

 the noble class from which they were taken. By Solon, eligibility to 

 Uw office, and perhaps the right of suffrage, were enlarged, but the 

 mode of appointment remained the same. In after times, and even as 

 early a* the first Persian invasion of Greece, the appointment was by 

 lot The case of Ariateides seems to have been an exception to the 

 general rule, and may be attributed perhaps to hi* high character and 

 eminent services. ( Aristot ' Polit.' 2, 9, 2 ; Herod. 6, 109 ; Plut ' Vit 

 Ariat' c. i., p. 481, ed. Reisk, compared with p. 479.) We have no 

 information which enable* us to fix the time when the change was 

 fleeted. It ha* been attributed, with some probability, to Cl*ithens, 



but we know only with certainty that they were at one time elected 

 and at some subsequent period appointed by lot. It must not be sup- 

 posed that all the citizens were eager to avail themselves of the d.ml.le 

 opportunity offered by the new mode of n].;>ointinent and the 1 

 Aristeides. It seems that the poorest of them declined the hazard f 

 the lot, which might throw upon them a burdensome honour. (\<M. 

 'Hep. Athen.' 1, 8.) 



Of the nine archons, one, usually termed the archon, was chief, and 

 had the title of ep6nymui (Mnpot) . or name-giver, because the year in 

 which he served the office was called by his name, as among the Roman* 

 the year was distinguished by the names of their consul*. Thus hia 

 name appears at the head of all public decrees (gee Dem. ' De < 

 Thucyd. 5, 19), and generally in all solcmn*records of state. Tl 

 from the time of Creon, the first annual archon, is nearly compli 

 trustworthy. Of the remaining eight, one was called the king (fi<uri*<vi), 

 another the polemarck, and the last nix had the general title of litcemo- 

 thette. Before admission to their office, they were subjected, like . >th. r 

 public officers, to the examination called dokinuuia (that is, trial or 

 examination), for the purpose of ascertaining that they were Athenians 

 of pure blood, whole of limb, and without blemish in their characters. 

 With reference to the last point, they were asked if they had treated 

 their |reuts kindly. When once invested with their office and adorned 

 with the chaplet, the distinguishing mark of it (ttch. ' contra. Tim.' 

 p. 3, 33), they were especially protected by the laws from all insult 

 and outrage, and were exempted even from those public burdens which 

 were not included in the general exemption granted to their most 

 favoured citizens, the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. 

 (Dem. 'contra. Lepf p. 462, 20; and p. 465, 17.) There is re;i 

 believe that they were members of the council of Areopagus by virtue 

 of their office. [AnEoi'A<;t:s.] It is certain that they passed from their 

 annual magistracy to a permanent seat in that council. 



Their public duties had reference for the most part to the adminis- 

 tr.it ion of justice. In gome courts, and in certain causes, they \\ 

 presiding judges. On some occasions they had the execution only of 

 the sentence pronounced by other judges ; but it seems to have formed 

 a large if not the most considerable part of their legal duties to bring 

 causes into court (t'uriyuy, Dem. ' contra Lacr.' p. 940, 5-20) to be tried 

 before the proper tribunal, not in the character of public prosecutors, 

 but on application from the plaintiff or accuser, in which ca*> 

 province was somewhat similar to that of an English grand jury in 

 finding and ignoring bills. Sometimes, perhaps, the application to the 

 archon waa a form of little more importance as to the responsibility of 

 the archon than that in English law of suing out a writ. To each of 

 the first three archons, and collectively to the six theemothetx, a dis- 

 tinct province and peculiar duties were assigned. Incidental notice* of 

 these are to be found scattered over the Greek classics, especially in tin- 

 Attic orators; more systematic accounts occur in the earlier lr\i<-<>- 

 graphcrs and antiquarians, among whom Julius I'ollux may be ] 

 larly distinguished, whose authority would have more weight if we 

 were better acquainted with the sources from which their information 

 was derived and the times to -which their accounts refer. Copious 

 collections have been made from them by modern compilers, of whom, 

 perhaps, the most popular in our language is that of Archbishop Potter. 

 We shall present our readers with only a brief outline, sufficient to 

 convey a general view of the separate jurisdiction of these magistrate* 

 in the later times of the Athenian republic. 



It seems to have been the duty of the chief archon, or ep<5nymus, to 

 throw his official protection around those whose interest* were most 

 liable to be overlooked in the ordinary execution of the law. Hence he 

 was the appointed guardian of orphans and minors. He was also 

 charged with a more general superintendence in matters which con- 

 cerned the safety and good order of the state than was committed to 

 hi* colleagues. 



The king archon was more especially concerned with religious matters. 

 He was required to preside at the performance of the most solemn sacri- 

 fices. He had a certain control over the ministers of religion, an' I 

 himself tried offenders, or originated trials, in cases of impiety. It is 

 hardly necessary to observe, that in the early periods of regal govern- 

 ment kings were almost universally the chief ministers of religion. It 

 is commonly supposed that the title of this archon was inteiuli <1 to 

 denote the transfer of an important part of the king's prerogative to the 

 magistrate who, in the department of religion, supplied his place. 



The office of the pplemarch was doubtless in ito first institution that 

 which the name implies, to command in war ; and even as late as the 

 battle of Marathon, we find the polemareh Callimachus acting an 

 important part in the council of war which preceded it, and command- 

 ing in virtue of his office the right wing of the Athenians in the 

 engagement ; but in later times, when the generals of the republic were 

 immediately chosen by the people, the polemareh waa confined t.. tin- 

 discharge of civil duties, and particularly had cognisance of mutters 

 which concerned the strangers and mrtirt (resident aliens) at Athens, 

 zeroising a jurisdiction in this respect not unlike that of the pnetor 

 peregrinus at Rome. 



The thesmothetoo should, according to the meaning of their Ji'1', 

 have been legislators, or propounders of laws. It was i 

 their office to introduce laws, but rather to watch over the conduct of 

 those who put themselves forward as legislators, and also annually to 

 examine the existing law* for the purpose of removing contradictory 



