BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II P.]. Bicknell I. Introduction In an article published in this journal in 1987 1 Stanton and I ar­ gued that in the periods of Pnyx I and II Athenian citizens in the ekklesia were grouped by phylai and trittyes. In the period of Pnyx I, we submitted, the ecclesiasts from city trittyes sat at the front of the auditorium, those from inland trittyes behind them, and members of coastal trittyes at the rear. In the period of Pnyx II, it was further proposed, this order was changed; par­ ticipants from inland trittyes now occupied the foremost seats and those from city trittyes were positioned furthest back. In the second appendix to the article I offered a statistical argu­ ment to the effect that Athenian citizens registered in inland demes were politically more active in the ekklesia in the period of Pnyx II than their counterparts from coastal and city demes. I suggested that this fact supported our conclusions about seat­ ing arrangements in the assembly for the years concerned. Their position closest to the bema and presiding ofhcials gave would-be politeuomenoi from inland demes a decided, if not de­ cisive, advantage. I took care in my appendix to indicate the rough and ready nature of my calculations, and in what follows I seek to provide a less impressionistic and more rigorous analysis. Comprehen­ sive reworking was dictated in particular by two lines of crit­ icism communicated orally and by way of correspondence. The first group of objections relates to the source of the data base upon which my computations were founded. This was an inventory published in 1983 2 of 368 Athenian citizens active in the fourth century B.C. as rhetores and strategoi. Since the ap­ pearance of our article Hansen has published a list of addenda 1 "'Voting in Tribal Groups in the Athenian Assembly," GRBS 28 (1987) 51-92. 2 M. H. Hansen, '" Rhetores and Strategoi in Fourth-century Athens," GRBS 24 (1983) 151-80. 83 BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 84 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II and corrigenda to his inventory3 and subsequently made further revisions which he generously communicated to me during a recent visit to Australia. Equally generously R. Develin furnished me with detailed comments which suggested that fur­ ther modifications were in order. Further, in compiling my list I failed to take account of proposers of decrees whose demotics are discernible but whose names are obliterated or only partially preserved in the inscriptions that attest their activity. A full list of such was provided by Hansen in an important article pub­ lished in this journal in 1984.4 The other criticisms concerned the criteria that I chose to adopt for political activity in the assembly. The bases for inclu­ sion in my list (90f) were proposal of a decree in the ekklesia, the addition of a rider to a decree, and an address to the gath­ ered citizens. It has been objected that I failed to draw a rele­ vant distinction between decrees that were probouleumatic (and thus originated in the council of 500 and were sponsored in the assembly by a council member) and those that were pro­ posed on the assembly floor, and that I should have included in my list of names those who objected in the assembly that this or that psephisma was illegal and so instigated graphai parano­ mon cases. With the latter criticism I am now inclined to con­ cur. As to failure to distinguish the two types of decree, my rationale was that a council member whose name was attached to a probouleuma and who was responsible for its subsequent fate in the ekklesia would more likely than not be an individual experienced in speaking on the assembly floor. It is true, if Han­ sen's view of procheirotonia in the assembly is correctS (I have some reservations), that some probouleumata might be adopted without debate; but such untrammeled passage, obviating the necessity for active verbal support, can never, I would submit, have been confidently guaranteed. I concede now that irrele­ vance, for my purposes, of the distinction between the two types of decree should not have been taken for granted. The difference ought to have been noted and its bearing on my cal­ culations explicitly assessed. 3 GRBS 28 (1987) 209-1l. 4 "The Number of Rhetores in the Athenian Ecclesia, 355-322 B.C.," GR BS 25 (1984) 123-55. 5 See Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia (Copenhagen 1983) 123-30. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 P. J. BICKNELL 85 II. Inventories and Statistics Athenians Politically Active in the Ecclesia, 403/2-346/5 After much reconsideration I have come to the conclusion that Pnyx II will have been completed by and become opera­ tional in 403/2. The following analysis then embraces the period commencing with and including that year and concluding with and including 346/5, which brings us close to the construction of Pnyx III. I continue to concur with H. A. Thomson's sugges­ tion6 that proposals mentioned at Aeschines 1.81-84 provide for clearing the way, literally, for enlargment and revamping of the assembly place. The basis of my revised inventory of Athenians politically ac­ tive in Pnyx II whose demotics are recorded is Hansen's 1983 list of rhetores and strategoi together with his 1984 list of pro­ posers of decrees whose names are obliterated or only partially preserved. Hansen's 1987 and subsequent modifications to his 1983 catalogue are taken into account, as too are the comments communicated to me by R. Develin. The following activities are criteria for inclusion: (1) Proposal of a decree in the assembly whether non-probou­ leumatic or probouleumatic. The two types of psephisma are now distinguished, with D standing for the former, DP for the latter; a decree whose type is uncertain is signified by DU. I am aware of Hansen's conviction (supra n.4: 127) that some citizens moved decrees without addressing the ekklesia in support of their proposals, but remain unconvinced that the evidence he adduces commits us to such a counter-intuitional conclusion. My own view of [Dem.] 59.43, central to Hansen's argument, emerges below in the final section. (2) Contribution of a rider to a decree; signified by R. (3) An address to the assembly in a non-professional capacity and in non-extraordinary circumstances; signified by A. (4) Objection in the assembly to the legality of a decree which resulted in a graphe paranomon case; signified by GP. The appearance of LA at the end of an entry signifies activity in the ekklesia later than 346/5 on the part of the individual con­ cerned. 6 Hesperia Supp!. 19 (1982) 145 n.40. At some stage work in progress will have necessitated transfer of ekklesia meetings to alternative locations. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 86 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II I continue to exclude figures active and in the public eye un­ der the old democracy on the ground that previously acquired expertise and recognition will have facilitated their ecclesiastic activity. These now comprise: 'AVOO1dOTlS AEOY'(OpOU Kuoa9Tlva1.EUS (PA 828). "Avu'toS 'Av9E~icovos Eucovu~EuS (PA 1324, APF). He was active in the council in 413/2 (Ar. Thesm. 809) and strategos in 409/8 (Diod. 13.64.6). 'APXlVOS Ex: K01.AllS (PA 2526). See Ar. Ran. 367 with scholia and Plato Com. fr.133 (I 636 K.). 8EO~O'ti~S 'A9~ove{)S (PA 6913+6914, APF; SEG XXVIII 190 sup­ plies the demotic). See Cratinus fr.337 (I 112 K.). 8pacru~ouAoS AuICou l:'tE1.P1.EUS (PA 7310). I also continue to exclude essentially military figures whose in­ terventions in the ekklesia are likely either to have been in a pro­ fessional capacity or to have been facilitated by auctoritas ac­ quired as a consequence of military success: 'Icpt1cpa'tllC; TtJl08t­ ou 'PUJlVOUO"lOC;, TlJlo8EOS KovwvoC; 'AVaWKtWV <1>00- KOU Ilo'taJllOC; (?). The following who also served as strategoi during our period have not been excluded because analysis of their activity very strongly suggests that essentially they were politeuomenoi and that their political auctoritas may well have contributed to eventual election to military office: 'AptO"'tocprov 'AptO"'tocpavouc; 'A~llvtE'l)C;, KUAAtO"'tpU'toc; KUAAtKpa'touc; 'Aqnovu'ioc;, MEAavw- 1tOC; AaXll'toc; AiSwvE'l>C;. Exclusion is maintained of individuals who as likely as not pro­ posed decrees or addressed the assembly either in some profes­ sional or specialist capacity, or in extraordinary circumstances. These now include: 'Ap1.(J'to~axos Kp1.'too,,~ou 'AAco1tE911ICEV (PA 1969), who addressed the assembly in 353/2 (Dem. 23.13, 110) as the representative of Charidemus and Cersebleptes. 8Eal'tTl'tos 'EPX1.EUS (PA 6631), who may well have addressed the assembly in 361/0 concerning alliance with Thessaly (IG IJ2 116.45) in the capacity of envoy or proxenos. Naucr1.ICAllS KAEapxou 'Qi19Ev (PA 10552), who was ambassador to Philip of Macedon in 347/6 when he addressed the assembly recommending Aeschines as envoy (Aeschin. 2.18). cI>puvcov ·Pa~voucrl.OS (PA 10352), who had a very special reason for BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 P. J. BICKNELL being given the floor for proposing a mission to Philip in 348/ 7; he had recently been ransomed and hoped to recover the money (Aeschin. 2.12). 87 I now reject the following as chronologically doubtful, inse­ cure, or mistaken: 'ES"1CEcr'ttO,,~ Xaptou eOpt1Cl.O~. I heed Develin's warning against combining PA 4710 and 4718. MEvi't,,~ MEvrovo~ Ku8ae"VatEU~ (PA 10055). I follow Hansen 1987 and Develin. n&vol.O~ l:roKAEOU'; £S OtOU (PA 11575). Given the emergence of n&v81.O~ 'AxapvEu~ (IG 112 5830) and n&v81.O~ TE1.ep&crl.O~ (S EG XXIV 151.6) it is no longer safe, as Hansen has pointed out to me, to identify the proposer of IG lIZ 103 and 105 with the gram­ mateus of 355/4 (IG lIZ 131.4, 132.19, 133.6). nOAUKp&'t"~ nOAUEUK'tOU "yatEu~. Develin indicates that the pro­ poser of I G IJ2 207a is nOAUKp&'t"~ nOAUKp&'tOU, deme un­ known. Dates and references are normally supplied only by way of clarifying which decrees listed in Hansen's 1983 catalogue are non-probouleumatic, which probouleumatic, and which cannot be assigned with any real confidence to one of the two cate­ gories for lack of information. All other dates and references may be culled from his original list together with his 1987 sche­ dule of modifications. With respect to differentiation of the two categories of decree, I am heavily indebted to tables C and D of pp.246-68 of P. J. Rhodes' The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972). In some cases demes appear with more than one trittys affili­ ation. The first represents allocation within Cleisthenes' organ­ isation (which in the view of some remained in effect until the inception of the two Macedonian phylai in 307/6) of the Athe­ nian citizen body. Despite speculations by Traill to the con­ trary,7 I remain convinced that the Cleisthenic trittyes were strictly topographic. The second, in italics, reflects my convic­ tion that in the fourth century the Cleisthenic trittyes were modified with several demes being shunted from their original grouping to another belonging to the same phyle in defiance of geographical reality. Such transpositions to my mind constitute the best explanation of the ordering of demes in inscribed 7 See n.11 infra. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 88 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II fourth-century lists of prytaneis and bouleutai.8 I draw the con­ clusion that the original groupings of demes in trittyes, together with the demes' bouleutic quotas, were altered by way of a single, comprehensive renovation probably more or less coinci­ dent with the democracy's restoration.9 Both features-new structure and new representations-were dictated by demo­ graphic considerations. After the face-lift all demes were once again (assuming, that is, that Cleisthenes played fair when he de­ vised his original groupings and quotas) proportionately repre­ sented in the council of 500, and in nine out of ten phylai (on the single recalcitrant exception, Oineis, see below) trittyes roughly equal in population were achieved, each of which pre­ sented a bouleutic complement of 16 or 17. The following trans­ positions, all but the third derived from Traill, are relevant in the present context overall: Erechtheid Anagyrous from coast to inland (Traill 104f) Pandionid Probalinthos from coast to city (Traill 101) Leontid Upper and Lower Potamos from coast to citylO 8 The arrangements of demes in these lists was the subject of a seminal dis­ cussion by W. E. Thompson, Historia 15 (1966) 1-10. His investigations pro­ vided the foundation for the explorations of J. S. Traill. 9 That the Cleisthenic system sustained a substantial reorganisation was the view arrived at by J. S. TRAILL in the body of his article, -Diakris, the Inland Trittys of Leontis," Hesperia 47 (1978 [hereafter 'Traill']) 89-109. In an adden­ dum, however, he changes his mind and suggests that trittyes not strictly topo­ graphic go back to Clcisthenes; so too Hesperia Suppl. 19 (1982) 162-71, and Demos and Trittys (Toronto 1986). Traill seems to me to fail to give due con­ sideration to the inevitable effects, surely disparate with respect to different groupings, on the Athenian population of the plague. huge losses in the Pelo­ ponnesian War, and the purges carried out by the Thirty. The phylai them­ selves can hardly have been equal in population at the beginning of the fourth century, when there must have been a temptation to shift demes from one to another. For whatever reason (I hesitate to invoke the alleged Athenian conser­ vatism that has been so overworked by many scholars) it was resisted. A by-product of the restructuring I envisage was, I think, the formation of a handful of new demes, all very small. These included Erechtheid Sybridai, first in evidence in 377/6 (IG Il2 1410.1). 10 Traill, Demos (supra n.9: 130-32), now contends that Upper and Lower Potamos were city demes in the topographic sense, while Potamos Deiradiotes belonged to the coastal trittys. My present position is that all three demes were originally coastal and that the two former were transferred to the modified city trittys at the beginning of the fourth century; hence the grouping of the two demes at Agora XV 13 (370/69). AtAgora XV 42 (336/5) geographic reality overwhelms administrative convenience. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 P. ]. BICKNELL Hippothontid Azenia from coast to inland11 Aiantid Rhamnous from coast to city (Traill 102) Antiochid Eroiadai and Krioa from inland to city (Traill 104) 89 Still finding no good reason to conclude that Acharnai was multi-nuclear I continue to discount transference of part of this Oeneid deme from inland to city.12 As before, I am unable to accept Traill's revision of 198213 in conformity with which Ana­ gyro us would remain a coastal deme while Upper Lamptrai was shifted from Erechtheid coast to inland. 1. AicrxivTtS 'A'tpOIlTt'tOU KoerolCio"s (PA 354). Phyle VI, trittys Coast. A (more than once); LA. 2. 'AA£l;illaxos nTtATtl; (PA 545). IV, Inland. D. 3. 'AvOpo'tirov "AvOprovOS raprTt't'ttos (PA 913+915, APF). II, Inland. D 2 (356/5, Dem. 22.48, 24.160f; 347/6, IG 112 212.8); DU 3 (365/4?, IG IJ2 216a.13, b.6; 356/5?, Dem. 22.70, 24.178; 356/5, Dem. 22.5, 8-10); A 3; GP. 4. 'A1tOAA6SropoS nacrirovos 'AxapvEus (PA 1411). VI, Inland. DP. 5. 'APtcr'tO'tEATtS Mapa9rovtos (PA 2065). IX, Coast. D. 6. 'APlcr'tOtNiypou 'AAatEUS (PA 2662+2663+2664). VII, Coast. D (373/2: Hesperia 3 [1934] 2f no. 3); DP (37817: IG IJ2 42.3). 10. 'Apos nOAuaptAE'lItOS i\ct~1t'tPEUS (PA 14256). I, Coast. A (frequent). 45. lAoKpa'tTl'=i nu8ooropou 'AyvOUO"LOS (PA 14599+14576). V, Inland. DP (before 353/2, IG 112 182.5); DU 6 (352/1, Androt. FGrHist 324 F 30, Philoch. 328 F 155, IG IJ2 204.54f; 34817, Aeschin. 2.13; 347/6, Aeschin. 2.18; 347/6, Aeschin. 3.54, Dem. 18.21; 347/6, Dem. 19.47£); since Phil 0 crates could not have been a member of the boule in more than one of the years concerned, some of these must have been non-probouleumatic; R. 46. tAOnaOTl'=i lAoO"'tpa'tou naAATlVEUS (PA 14927). X, Inland. DP. 47. -'=i 'APlO"'tUAAOU l:'tElpu::US (Hansen [1984] 137 no. 6). III, Coast. DP (351/0, IG II2 205.9). For 46 out of the 47 individuals in the revised data bank, affilia­ tion in terms of the strictly topographical trittyes created by Cleisthenes is more or less certain. The single exception now is Stephanus (41) whose deme, Eroiadai, could belong to either city Hippothontis or inland Antiochis. Leaving Stephanus out of account, 23 (2, 3, 4,7,8,10,11,13,14,15,16, 17, 18,27,28,31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 42, 45, and 46) out of 46 individuals, that is 50%, were registered in inland demes; 15 (1, 5, 6, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 35, 36, 40, 44, 47), that is 33%, in coastal demes; and 8 (12, 19, 25,29, 30, 34, 37, 43), that is 17%, in city demes. In terms of the modified trittyes that in my view were opera­ tive for all purposes during the fourth century from the restora­ tion of the democracy until the creation of the Macedonian phylai, the trittys affiliation of all 47 individuals is now more or less established. 24 (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42, 45, 46), 51 %, belonged to inland demes; 12 (1, 5, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 36, 40, 44, 47), 260/0, to coastal BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 92 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II demes; and 11 (12, 19, 20, 25, 29, 30, 34, 37, 39, 41, 43), 24%, to city demes. Of our 47 individuals, 6 (4, 8, 12, 19,46,47) appear in the inven­ tory on the basis of a singleton probouleumatic decree. I still in­ cline to the supposition that bouleutai whose names were at­ tached to a probouleuma were as likely as not men with experi­ ence in speaking on the assembly floor, and point out that anoth­ er 9 (6, 9, 13, 25, 26, 28, 38, 42, 45) of those listed proposed de­ crees of both varieties, probouleumatic and non-probouleu­ matic.16 If, nevertheless, the former six individuals are excluded, the following statistics result. In terms of topographic trittyes, with Stephanus (41) perforce left out of account, 20 out of 40 individuals, 50%, belong to inland demes; 14, 35%, to coastal demes; and 6, 15%, to city demes. In terms of the modified trit­ tyes that I consider relevant, 21 of 41 individuals, 51 %, are members of inland demes, 11, 27%, of coastal demes; and 9, 22%, of city demes. Given that as a result of the modifications carried out by the restoration democracy the constituent trittyes of all phylai except Oineis were more or less equalised, the figures, pro­ vided that we have at least a reasonable approximation to an ade­ quate and non-aberrant statistical sample, are extremely remark­ able. Other things being equal and with allowance duly made for considerable migration from peripheral demes to the Ath­ ens-Peiraeus complex, we would expect neither such a rela­ tively poor showing on the part of the city, nor the vast dispro­ portion between inland and coast. I continue to countenance and to commend serious attention to the possibility that the figures reflect differing potentialities for active participation in an assembly in which members of inland demes sat across the front of the auditorium closest to the bema, members of coastal demes behind them, and members of city demes at the rear. Strategoi,403/2-346/5 The following list comprises all Athenians whose demotics are recorded who held the office of strategos in one or more years from 403/2 through 346/5. Dates and references may be found 16 So also Pandius, now excluded. IG Il2 103 (369/8) is probouleumatic, 105 (368/7) non-probouleumatic. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 P. J. BICKNELL 93 in Hansen's 1983 catalogue of rhetores and strategoi; I have noted the relevant 1987 additions and corrections and taken heed of further revisions communicated to me personally. The latter account for the absence of MoA.o't'toc; Euvo~ou 'Aq)t()vat­ oc;: the existence of MoA.o't'toC; 'Iq)tO''tul()OU, bouleutes in 336/5 (Agora XV 42.203) renders unsafe the equation of the general of 349/8 (PA 10403) with the diaitetes of ca 325 (10406; see IG 112 1927.129). Phyle and deme are indicated in terms of the mod­ ified trittyes of the fourth century until 307/6. Italics are used where the affiliation differs from its counterpart in the strictly topographical organisation of Cleisthenes. 1. 'A"uppto<; KOAAU'tEU<; (PA 179). II, City. 2. 'AAIClllaxo<; 'AvaYUPclcHo<; (PA 616). I, Inland. 3. 'AV'tto9EV'T1<; 'AV'ttcpcl'tOU<; Ku9"pptO<; (PA 1184+1196). III, Coast)7 4. 'Apto'tocp&v 'AptO'tOCPclVOU<; 'A~'T1VtEU<; (PA 2108). VIII, Inland. 5. 'APXtvo<; EIC KOlA'T1<; (PA 2526). VIII, City. 6. AU'tOICAll<; ~'tpOIl~tXlBou EucovullEU<; (PA 2727). I, City. 7. ~'T1llalvE'to<; ~'T1IlEOU nataVtEu<; (PA 3265+3276). III, Inland. 8. ~toICAll<; 'AAC01tEIC1l9EV (PA 3990+4015). X, City. 9. ~tbttIlO<; 'OAUIl1ttOBropou EucoVUIlEU<; (PA 4370, APF). I, City. 10. 'E~'T1ICEO'tlB'T1<; 8optICtO<; (PA 4718). V, Coast. 11. 'HYTlOtAECO<; npopaAtmo<; (PA 6339). III, City. 12. 8pacrU~ouA.o<; 8pclOCOVO<; 'EpXtEU<; (PA 7304). II, Inland. 13. 8paou~ouAO<; 8pclOCOVO<; KOAAU'tEU<; (PA 7305). II, City. 14. 8pacrU~ouAO<; AUlCOU ~'tEtPtEU<; (PA 7310). III, Coast. 15. 'ICPtICPcl'tTlC; T1.Il09EOU 'PallvOUOto<; (PA 7737). IX, City. 16. KaAAta<; '11t1tOVtlCO\) 'AAC01tEK1l8EV (PA 7826). X, City. 17. KaAAto'tpa'to<; KaAAtlCpcl'tOU<; 'AcptBvato<; (PA 8157+8129). IX, In­ land. 18. K'T1CP1.o6BO'toC; 'AxapvEu<; (PA 8313). VI, Inland. 19. KAE6~oUAO<; rAaUlCOU 'AxapvEu<; (PA 8558). VI, Inland. 17 At Mnemosyne SER. IV 28 (1975) 57-62 I suggested that Kytherros was a deme of inland Pandionis which was to be associated with the ancient re­ mains near Vourva, 2.5 km. northeast of Spata. Traill provisionally accepted this identification (Hesperia 47 [1978] 101 n.37) and abandoned his previous association (Hesperia Suppl. 14 [1975] 41) of the site with Aigeid Myrrhinoutta which he had tentatively assigned to the inland trittys. Traill then went on to suggest that K ytherros was a coastal rather than an inland deme. Recently he has argued that it is to be identified with a deme site at Pousi Kaloyerou; he continues to assign it to coastal Pandionis (Demos [supra n.9] 47-51). For a number of reasons I am reluctant to abandon my 1975 identification, and am puzzled by the fact that the Vourva site is ignored in TraiU's latest work. I am prepared to accept the affiliation of Kytherros to Pandionis' coastal trittys. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 94 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II 20. Kovc.ov TlJloSEOU 'Avaa'lopoc; KaAAlou 1:lAoxapllC; 'PaJlVOUOloc; (PA 14779). IX, City. 34. tArov KaAAt7t7tOU Ai~rovEUC; (PA 14825, APF). VII, Coast. 35. roldrov wlCou no'taJlWC; (?) (PA 15076).1 8 V, Coast or City. 36. Xa~pt(x(; K'tll0t7t7tOU Ai~rovEUC; (PA 15086). VII, Coast. 37. XapllS 8EOXapouS 'AYY£AilSEV (PA 15292). III, Coast. 38. XapiOllJlOC; lAo~EvOU 'AxapvEuc; (PA 15380). VI, Inland. I take it to be a non-controversial proposition that in the fourth century, by and large, Athenian generals were chosen on the basis of actual or supposed military capacity. This granted, and given equalisation at the time of the democracy's restora­ tion of the trittyes within all phylai except Oineis, we would ex­ pect those individuals who held the strategia within our period to be distributed more or less evenly across inland, coastal, and city demes. If the above list is an adequate statistical sample, analysis should confirm such anticipation. I exclude from computation Conon (20) and Thrasybulus of Steiria (14) on the ground that the electorate would have been predisposed in their favour by the fact that both had become established and prestigious military figures in the fifth cen­ tury.19 Arguably, Aristophon (4), Archinus (5), Callistratus (17), Melanopus (24), and Rhinon (29) 20 should be eliminated also on the ground that for all acquired political influence may have car­ ried weight with a substantial number of electors. The decision 18 For the possible demotic see Agora XV 42.206. 19 Conon's remarkable career from Aegispotarni until his triumphant return to Athens must have conferred especial glamour. 20 Rhinon had a very high profile immediately before the restoration of the democracy: see Arist. Ath.Pol. 38, Isoc. 18.6-8. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 P. J. BICKNELL 95 is a difficult one and I calculate with and without them. Phocion (35) is omitted because even if his deme is correctly identified its trittys affiliation is uncertain. With Aristophon, Archinus, Callistratus, Melanopus, and Rhi­ non included, 12 (2, 4, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 28,29, 31,32, 38) generals out of 35, that is 34.29%, belong to inland demes; 11 (3, 10, 21, 22,23, 24,26, 30, 34, 36, 37), 31.42%, to coastal demes; and 12 (1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 25, 27, 33) 34.29% again, to city demes. With those five ejected 9 out of 30 generals, 30%, belong to in­ land demes; 10, 33.33%, to coastal; 11, 36.66%, to city. In the first case the spread conforms as closely as it could to expectation, and in the second it remains very undramatic. I infer that small as it is our batch of generals constitutes a not un­ representative sample. If this is right the inventory of citizens ac­ tive in Pnyx II, compiled from the same evidential resources, if comparatively somewhat more exiguous, may have at least some claim to similar reliability. Athenians Politically Active in the Ekklesia, 34514-32312 For comparative puposes I list and then scrutinise Athenians of known demotic, politically active in the assembly, whose earliest attested ecclesiastic contribution falls in the years 345/4 through 323/2, the period during which Pnyx III was con­ structed and became operational. The basic sources are again Hansen's 1983 list of rhetores and strategoi and his 1984 list of proposers of decrees whose demotics are preserved but whose names are either broken or obliterated. I am satisfied that num­ bers 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, and 29 of the 1984 list are all distinct individuals and that none can be equated with per­ sons included in the 1983 catalogue whose demotics are ascertainable. I once again take account of Hansen's 1987 modifi­ cations and his subsequent revisions. The latter explain the ex­ clusion of Emmenides: as Hansen has pointed out to me, P A 4687, whom in 1987 he was inclined to identify with Emmeni­ des of Koile of IG II 2 208.4f, might equally well be Emmenides Hekalethen of Agora XV 42.463. Philocles son of Phormio Eroi­ ades (PA 14521+14591, APF) has been excluded as an essentially military figure. Nausicles son of Clearchus Oethen is retained because his overall record suggests that he was basically a poli­ teuomenos. I no longer indicate which decrees were probouleumatic and BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 96 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II which not. Hence there are only four symbols: D, decree; R, rider; A, address; GP, graphe paranomon. Only modified trittys affiliation is indicated, with italics used where topographic re­ ality has been overridden. 1. 'AyvOlvlOll~ N1.lCO~EVOU nEP'Y(l(Ji1S£v (PA 176). I, Inland. D. 2. 'AAlC1J.1(lXO~ £'Y Mupp1.VOU't'tll~ (PA 622). II, Coast. D. 3. 'AP1.(J'tO'YEl-tOlV Kuo1.J.1axou 'Aq)1.0V(llO~ (PA 1775).21 IX, Inland. D; A (frequent); GP. 4. 'AP1.(J'tOV1.lCO~ 'AP1.(J'tO'tEAOU~ M(lp(lSrovl.O~ (P A 2023+2028). IX, Coast. D. 5. 'AP1.(J'tOV1.lCO~ N1.lCOP(l(J1.lCAelOOU MUpPlVOU(J1.~ (PA 4435). III, Coast. D 2. 16. L\laVQOl1JlOS ~tUAAOU 8uJlat'tuol1S (PA 14033). VIII, City. D. 40. tAEas 'AV'ttYEVOU llalOviol1S (PA 14232+14242). IV, Inland. D. 41. 1.A6oru.lOS AU'tOICAEOUS 'EpotuollS (PA 14488). VIII, City, or X, City. R. 42. XatptCOViol1S Aucraviou cI>AuEuS (PA 15269). VII, Inland. D. 43. - Oivo~iou ·PaJ..lVOUCHOS (Hansen 1984 no. 8). IX, City. D (344/3; IG II2 229.6f). 44. -ou PEupplOS (Hansen no. 9). IV, Coast. D (341/0; IG II2 22004f). 45. - llO'tUJ..llOS. IV, Coast or City (Hansen no. 12). D (before 336/5; IG II2 253.1 f). 46. -ou 'A~l1VtEUS (Hansen no. 13). VIII, Inland. 47. ~cppOVOS AaIC1.UOl1S (Hansen no. 14). IV, City. D. (334/4; IG II2 336a.5f). 48. -ICEPOl1S 'AvayupuO"lOS (Hansen no. 17). I, Inland. D (333/2?; IG II2 343.2f). 49. -oropou MEAt'tEUS (Hansen no. 19). VII, City. D (323/2; IG II2 367.9f). 50. - AaICtuOllS (Hansen no. 20). VI, City. D (350-320; IG II2 40304f). 51. -IC'tOU LICaJ..l~coviOllS (Hansen no. 21). IV, City. D (ca 330; IG II2 410.1f). 52. - 8PlUO"lOS (Hansen no. 27). VI, Coast. D (327 /6; Hesperia 3 [1934] 3£ no. 5). 53. - llatavtI:uc; (Hansen no. 29). III, Inland. D 335/4; Hesperia 9 [1940] 327£ no. 36). D (352-336; IG II2 289.6). Of these 53 individuals 24 (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 25, 29, 33, 35, 38, 40, 42, 46,48, 53), that is 450/0, are mem­ bers of inland demes; 12 (2, 4, 12, 15, 16, 19, 23, 30, 31, 34, 44, 52) are definitely coastal, 16 (18,21,24,26,27,28, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51) definitely city. No. 45 is coastal if Potamos Dei­ radiotes, city if Upper or Lower Potamos. If the former, 250/0 of those listed are coastal and 30% city; if the latter, 23% coastal and 32% city. The representation of the city now conforms to expectation on the basis that no modified regional group of citizens in the as­ sembly was disadvantaged with respect to participation as a con­ sequence of seating arrangements. On the other hand, coastal BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 98 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II representation is depressed and inland, while not so inflated as in the previous half century, is still very high. Some will be re­ luctant to countenance attribution of the inland's preponder­ ance purely to the circumstance that many of the citizens con­ cerned commenced their ecclesiastic activity in the auditorium of Pnyx II with arrangements such as Stanton and I envisage. The tyranny of distance is a factor difficult to assess. Members actually resident in some of the outlying coastal demes had par­ ticularly far to travel from domicile to Pnyx. III. Conclusion In the foregoing it has been my aim to strengthen an indirect argument for the grouping of the citizens of Athens in Pnyx II which Stanton and I proposed in 1987. Whether or not I have succeeded is a matter for the reader's judgement. If I have not, the remarkable preponderance of members of inland demes among those active in Pnyx II, and later, still awaits explanation. I am very aware that indirect arguments, however suggestive, cannot be probative. Conclusive direct proofs of our views about the auditorium of Pnyx II are essential and such, I be­ lieve, will only be possible when new and decisive evidence comes to light. In a reply to our article Hansen attempts a definitive refu­ tation of our contentions with respect to Pnyx II on the basis of evidence presently available. 22 I conclude with rejoinders to his two main arguments. The first involves Aristophanes' Ecclesia­ zusae, indications from which I sought to adduce in favour of our own views about arrangements in Pnyx II; the second re­ volves around section 43 of Apollodorus' (?) speech against Ne­ aera. Hansen first points out, what I do not dispute, that the women with Praxagora in Ecclesiazusae are in a great hurry to get to the Pnyx and that they express concern to reach it ahead of men from the city. If, Hansen insists, inland dwellers invari­ ably sat in the front of the auditorium and city dwellers at the back, the women cannot oust the men from the city, and they do not have to hasten. I respond that the reason for the wom- 22 "The Organization of the Athenian Assembly: A Reply," GRBS 29 (1988) 51-58. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 P. J. BICKNELL 99 en's haste, spelled out with the utmost clarity at 289-310, is their fear that the assembly place will be filled before they can reach it with citizens eager to claim the ekklesiastikon and that they will thus fail to gain admission. As city dwellers have the least distance to travel to the Pnyx it is they who present the greatest threat to the women's scheme to gain entry. Stanton and I do not envisage that x flaces in the auditorium were rigidly set aside for members 0 inland demes, the same number for mem­ bers of coastal demes, and the same again for members of city demes. It was a matter of first-come first-admitted, and so paid, with the proviso that those inland dwellers who gained admis­ sion were grouped up front and so on. It was theoretically pos­ sible, and may actually have happened, that the red-painted ropes were brought into action to exclude superfluous ecclesi­ asts (378f) at a juncture when two-thirds, say, of those admitted were city dwellers. In that case such would spread from the rear quite deeply into the auditorium. Hansen further adduces the conversation between Blepyrus ~nd Chremes at 372-477. Focussing in particular on 431-33 he maintains that quite obviously the front part of the auditorium was filled, according to Chremes' perception, not with citizens pale as city-dwellers, but with pale city-dwellers whom he op­ poses to the citizens from the countryside. I continue in my be­ lief that the women with Praxagora were sitting close to the bema as a result of successful, albeit somewhat botched, simu­ lation of members of rural demes. Earlier they had attempted to acquire a tan appropriate to outdoor workers but failed (62-64). Hence a conspicuous pallor (387) which distinguished them from rustics who laboured in the fields and led Chremes to liken them to shoe-makers (385-432). Would paleness alone ex­ clude rusticity? Surely not. Hansen appears to assume, and this I cannot believe, that shoe-makers, and indoor workers in gen­ eral, operated, or could be conceived of as operating, exclusive­ ly in the Athens-Peiraeus complex. Chremes thought it unusual that in the front of the auditorium pale country-dwellers 23 out­ numbered those EK'troV ayprov. Hansen fails to explain both the 23 To be precise, pale members of inland demes. As a result of the modifica­ tions undertaken after the fall of the Thirty some inland trittyes contained some suburban dwellers. To guarantee their scheme's success Praxagora and her entourage tried to pose as part of the genuinely rural, and agricultural, majority. BICKNELL, P. J., Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:1 (1989) p.83 100 ATHENIANS IN PNYX II concern of Praxagora's cohort to get sun-burned and their ex­ plicit masquerade as rustics, which seems to be undeniable, at 277-79. In section 43 of the speech against Neaera,24 according to Han­ sen, the speaker represents Stephanus of Eroiadai at one stage of his career as sitting near the bema and shouting at speakers dur­ ing assembly meetings. Given that in my view both Hippothon­ tid and Antiochid Eroiadai were city demes in the fourth cen­ tury, how was this possible? In Hansen's view Stephanus, be­ fore Callistratus took him up, featured in the assembly as a pro­ fessional heckler or cheer squad leader. I interpret the passage quite differently. Stephanus, the speaker claims, started out as a crude sykophantes; eventually he graduated to a more or less es­ tablished rhetor in his own right. Stephanus' activities in the first phase of his career are spelled out: he brought indictments and laid informations for profit, and his name was attached to de­ crees that others had drawn up. I am unable to believe that Ste­ phanus did not speak to the resolutions concerned. Accord­ ingly, even when he was a sykophantes, Stephanus' verbal con­ tributions in the assembly were formal and directed at, not from, the audience. Their delivery was theatrical in the extreme with Stephanus exemplifying the type of speaker who ranted and raved and, like Timarchus (Aeschin. 1.26), moved about be­ side the bema. 25 MONASH UNIVERSITY December, 1988 24 [Dem.] 49.43: OU yap 1tCO ~v Pt)'tcop, aAA' En O,\)KOqxlV'tl1~ 'troY 1tapai3orov­ 'tcov 1tapa 'to i3ilJla Kat ypa