Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:14:18.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Organization of Athenian Public Finance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2013

P. J. Rhodes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most of this article will be concerned with the institutional organization of Athens’ public finances, but to provide the background to that I begin with some basic facts about income and expenditure. Athens’ finances, and Athenian administration generally, were on a larger scale and more complex than those of most Greek states – partly because Athens itself was an exceptionally large state, with a territory of 1,000 square miles (2,600 square kilometres) and a body of adult male citizens numbering perhaps 60,000 before the Peloponnesian War and 30,000 after; and partly because, in addition to its domestic business, for much of the fifth century Athens had the business of the Delian League to deal with and for forty years in the fourth century it had the business of its Second League. The Delian League was without precedent in the Greek world as an alliance founded with a view to ongoing warfare, and as an alliance to which many members from the beginning and almost all members after a while made contributions by annual cash payments of phoros (‘tribute’). Athens thus needed to develop skills in managing large and small sums of money to a much greater extent than other states. Athens’ administration depended largely on annually appointed officials, and our evidence gives prominence to the principle of accountability and to various accounting procedures; but, although Athens applied the principles in its own way, the principles were not distinctively Athenian or distinctively democratic: the use of rotating officials and of accounting procedures was widespread in Greek states of varying political complexions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , October 2013 , pp. 203 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article has been revised from my contribution to a London seminar series in 2008 on Taxation and Public Spending in the Ancient World. My thanks to Prof. H. van Wees for inviting me to take part in that series, to those who listened to me, and to those who have discussed the subject with me then and subsequently, particularly to Dr. P. W. Fawcett, Dr. D. M. Pritchard, and Prof. van Wees for commenting on my drafts and showing me drafts of their work, to Dr. G. Davis and Prof. J. Ober for showing me drafts of articles of theirs, and to Dr. Davis for discussion of what happened to Attic silver, and to G&R's referee.

References

1 See Hansen, M. H., Three Studies in Athenian Demography (Copenhagen, 1988), 14–28Google Scholar, or Rhodes, P. J., Thucydides. History, II (Warminster, 1988), 271–7Google Scholar (arriving by different routes at c.60,000 in 431); Hansen, Demography and Demography (Herning, Denmark, 1985)Google Scholar (c. 30,000 after the war). Other scholars have argued for lower figures. The total population, including foreigners and slaves, before the Peloponnesian War may have been in the region of 300,000–400,000. For comparison, in the United Kingdom, County Durham, with no large city, has about the same area and a population of c.500,000; the US state of Rhode Island has an area of slightly over 3,000 square kilometres and a population a little over 1,000,000.

2 Thuc. 1.96.1–97.1 is fundamental.

3 On the need for leading politicians to undertand financial issues and to be able to elucidate them to the assembly see Kallet-Marx, L., ‘Money Talks: Rhetor, Demos, and the Resources of the Athenian Empire’, in Osborne, R. and Hornblower, S. (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis (Oxford, 1994), 227–51Google Scholar; more generally on the development of fiscal mechanisms and fiscal expertise in Athens, and the legacy for the Hellenistic period, see Davies, J. K., ‘Athenian Fiscal Expertise and its Influence’, Mediterraneo Antico 7 (2004), 491–512Google Scholar.

4 On accountability see Fröhlich, P., Les cités grecques et le contrôle des magistrats (IVe–Ier siècle avant J.-C.) (Geneva, 2004)Google Scholar; Rhodes, P. J., Euthynai (Accounting) (Durham, 2005)Google Scholar.

5 For a general survey of Athens’ income, expenditure, and fiscal policies see Ober, J., ‘Fiscal Policy in Classical Athens’, in Scheidel, W. and Monson, A. (eds.), Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States (Cambridge, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

6 E.g. IG i3 84, discussed below, pp. 211–2.

7 See, for instance, the fifth-century inventories of the treasurers of Athena, IG i3 292–382.

8 For instance, Demeter and Kore at Eleusis, e.g. ML 73 = IG i3 78, trans. Fornara 140.

9 On both taxes in the strict sense and liturgies see Gabrielsen, V., ‘Finances and Taxes’, in Beck, H. (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Greek Government (Chichester, 2013), 332–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P. Fawcett, ‘Taxes in Classical Athens’ (forthcoming).

10 2 tal. 5,550 dr. Agora xix P 19.30: more than that if one or more numeral characters have been lost to the left. See Shipton, K. M. W., ‘The Prices of the Athenian Silver Mines’, ZPE 120 (1998), 57–63Google Scholar, arguing from the 5 drachmae per prytany in P 26.474–7. On the mines, see Fawcett (n. 9).

11 In Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), 553Google Scholar, I suggested that the mine-lessor ‘was presumably free to dispose of the silver that he mined, the state's mint being an obvious but not the only purchaser’, and that is the explanation developed by van Alfen, P. G. ‘Hatching Owls: The Regulation of Coin Production in Later Fifth-century Athens’, in de Callataÿ, F. (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times (Bari, 2011), 143–6Google Scholar. An alternative suggstion, that the silver remained the property of the mine-lessors, who had it coined by the mint (which deducted taxes and a minting fee), and then spent most of it on their mining expenses but hoped for some profit, was advanced by Flament, C., Le monnayage en argent d’ Athènes (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2007), 29–31Google Scholar, and developed by G. Davis, ‘Mining Money in Late Archaic Athens’ (forthcoming).

12 IG i3 421–30, extract ML 79, trans. Fornara 147. D.

13 Cf. Plut. Per. 12–14. The arguments of Kallet-Marx, L., ‘Did Tribute Fund the Parthenon?’, ClAnt 8 (1989), 252–66Google Scholar, undermine the particular reconstruction of Meritt, B. D., Wade-Gery, H. T., and McGregor, M. F., The Athenian Tribute Lists, iii (Princeton, NJ, 1950), 279–81, 326–32Google Scholar, but not the basic possibility. On the fifth-century tribute and what it paid for, and on the fourth-century syntaxeis, see Wees, H. van, Ships and Silver, Taxes and Tribute. A Fiscal History of Archaic Athens (London, forthcoming 2013), ch. 5Google Scholar; Fawcett (n. 9).

14 In the 340s Oreus and Eretria together paid 10 talents (Aeschin. In Ctes. 94), whereas in the fifth century Eretria alone paid perhaps 6 talents at first, 3 talents after the establishment of a cleruchy, and was assessed for 15 talents in 425 (Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire [Oxford, 1972], 558–9Google Scholar). Totals of 60 talents and 45 talents (Aeschin. 2. Embassy, 71; Dem. 18. De cor. 234) refer to times towards the end of the League's existence, and earlier the totals will have been higher.

15 Assessment by the synedrion (the council of allies): IG ii2 233 = RO 72. 25–6 (restored but credibly); expenditure authorized by the synedrion: IG ii2 123 = RO 52. 9–12.

16 Hdt. 8.17; Xen. Hell. 2.3.40.

17 Isae. 5. Dicaeogenes, 37–8.

18 An appeal in 357 was in some sense ‘the first’: Dem. Meid. 160–1; e.g. IG ii2 791 revised as Agora xvi 213 (240s). On epidoseis, see Fawcett (n. 9).

19 See Ath. pol. 46.2; and see, for instance, the large body of accounts for fifth-century public works in IG i3 433–97 (examples ML 53, 54, 59, 60, trans. Fornara 90. B, 114, 120, 118. B).

20 See, for instance, RO 81 = IG ii3 447 (330s) on the Little Panathenaea and its funding (see also below, p. 223).

21 See, for instance, Ath. pol. 47.5, 48.1, 50. 2, 54.1, 65. 4.

22 See ibid., 46.1.

23 Pritchett, W. K., Ancient Greek Military Practices, i (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1971)Google Scholar = The Greek State at War, i (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1974), 3–29Google Scholar, collects and discusses evidence for military pay in Athens and elsewhere. On payment for soldiers and sailors see also van Wees (n. 13), ch. 4.

24 There were 412 in 325/324: IG ii2 1629.783–812, with Ashton, N. G., ‘How Many Pentereis?’, GRBS 20 (1979), 237–42Google Scholar. For a comparison of Athens’ religious and military expenditure see Pritchard, D. M., ‘Costing Festivals and War: Spending Priorities of the Athenian Democracy’, Historia 61 (2012), 16–65Google Scholar.

25 See de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., ‘Political Pay Outside Athens’, CQ 25 (1975), 48–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar: e.g. Hell. Oxy. 19.4 Chambers (oligarchic Boeotia at the beginning of the fourth century), RO 99 (Iasus after c. 330).

26 Ath. pol. 27.3–4; 41.3.

27 Hansen, M. H., ‘Misthos for Magistrates in Classical Athens’, SO 54 (1979), 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hansen, M. H., ‘Perquisites for Magistrates in Fourth-century Athens’, C&M 23 (1971–80), 105–25Google Scholar; contr. Rhodes (n. 11), 695; Gabrielsen, V., Remuneration of State Officials in Fourth-century b.c. Athens (Odense, 1981)Google Scholar; Gabrielsen (n. 9), 333.

28 See Rhodes, P. J., ‘“Classical” and “Hellenistic” in Athenian History’, in Dạbrowa, E. (ed.), Greek and Hellenistic Studies, Electrum 11 (Kraków, 2006), 35–8Google Scholar. It now seems likely that in the Antigonid period in the mid-third century, and probably also later, the limit for service in the council of two years in a man's life was relaxed; that the relaxation began earlier is not yet indicated by the evidence but perhaps ought not to be ruled out, and a change should perhaps be dated 307/306, from when the council required not 500 members each year but 600: see Rhodes (this note), 33, 38 n. 69; Byrne, S. G., ‘Agora xv 112 and Iteration of Council Service in Hellenistic Athens’, in Themos, A. A. and Papazarkadas, N. (eds.), ᾿Αττικὰ ᾿Επιγραφικά· Μελέτες πρὸς Τιμὴν τοῦ Christian Habicht (Athens, 2009), 215–23Google Scholar.

29 E.g. Ath. pol. 48.1.

30 See Rhodes, P. J., ‘Public Documents in the Greek States: Archives and Inscriptions’, G&R 48 (2001), 139–42Google Scholar.

31 Van Wees (n. 13), ch. 3.

32 Ath. pol. 8.3. Their authenticity is also accepted by van Wees (n. 13), ch. 3.

33 Rhodes (n. 11), ad loc.. See also Kroll, J. H., ‘Silver in Solon's Laws’, in Ashton, R. H. J. and Hurter, S., Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price (London, 1998), 225–32Google Scholar; de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays (Oxford, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 38; van Wees (n. 13), ch. 6. But against this view see Davis, G., ‘Dating the Drachmas in Solon's Laws’, Historia 61 (2012), 127–58Google Scholar.

34 See Ath. pol. 21.5, though that is not necessarily correct.

35 Gabrielsen, V., ‘The Naukrariai and the Athenian Navy’, C&M 36 (1985), 21–51Google Scholar, reviews suggested etymologies without reaching a firm conclusion. This derivation is accepted by van Wees (n. 13), ch. 3, who assigns a prominent role to the naukrariai in his reconstruction of early Athenian finance.

36 Ath. pol. 7.3; for the treasurers of Athena see 8.1, 47.1.

37 E.g. Arist. Pol. 2.1261a32–7. For appointment by lot see Ath. pol. on the individual offices; for the ban on reappointment see Ath. pol. 62.3.

38 To check not their competence but their good standing as eligible citizens: see Ath. pol. 55.2–5 on the dokimasia of the archons.

39 Ath. pol. 54.2 (logos); 48.4–5 (euthynai). In the time of Ath. pol. there was also in each prytany of the year a vote of confidence in the officials by the assembly (43.4) and an interim check of officials’ financial accounts (48.3).

40 See particularly the ‘Attic stelai’, recording the sale of property confiscated from men involved in the religious scandals of 415, IG i3 421–30, extract ML 79, trans. Fornara 147. D (in which the title of the poletai is not preserved): see also above, p. 205.

41 For the fourth century, discussed below, Ath. pol. 47.2, 4, specifically mentions mines, taxes, and sacred lands. For tax-farmers see, for instance, Andoc. 1. Mysteries, 133–4.

42 Van Wees (n. 13), ch. 3.

43 Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 b.c. (Oxford, 1971), 311Google Scholar; there is a list of his building works in W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen, second edition (Munich, 1931), 73–4.

44 Plut. Vit. Them. 1.4, 22.2–3.

45 Ath. pol. 22.7; see also van Wees (n. 13), ch. 4.

46 Thuc. 1.93.3–6.

47 ML 25, trans. Fornara 43.

48 Neer, R. T., ‘Delphi, Olympia and the Art of Politics’, in Shapiro, H. A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece (New York, 2007), 247–51Google Scholar.

49 E.g. Ath. pol. 43.6, on items in the assembly's agenda.

50 See Rhodes, P. J., ‘State and Religion in Athenian Inscriptions’, G&R 56 (2009), 1–13Google Scholar.

51 IG i3 7: date tentatively accepted by Mattingly, H. B., ‘Three Attic Decrees’, Historia 25 (1976), 43Google Scholar, n. 35 (= The Athenian Empire Restored [Ann Arbor, MI, 1999], 398Google Scholar, n. 35).

52 Ath. pol. 47.2–5. On the poletai and contracts for the collection of taxes, see Fawcett (n. 9).

53 E.g. IG i3 23.11–13 (c.447); ML 69 = IG i3 71.25–6 (425/424); ML 85 = IG i3 102.34–6 (410/409).

54 Ath. pol. 48.1–2. The statement in Andr. FGrH 324 F 5, from Harpocration, that Cleisthenes abolished the kolakretai and replaced them with the apodektai, is certainly wrong: probably, with F. Jacoby, FGrH iii.B. Supp. ad loc., we should blame the error on Harpocration rather than on Androtion himself; Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis (Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar, ad loc., and van Wees (n. 13), ch. 3, are willing to believe that Cleisthenes created the apodektai (which is not impossible, but no other evidence suggests that Cleisthenes concerned himself with such matters), but Harding's interpretation of anti to mean ‘equal to’ or ‘in place of part of the function of’ seems to me to be a desperate attempt to save a text that is not worth saving.

55 Van Wees (n. 13), ch. 3.

56 ML 91 = IG i3 117.4–9; for the trieropoioi, see Ath. pol. 46.1.

57 See IG ii2 29.18–22 (386), 31.14–17 (386/385), 40.21–3 (378/377), 212.39–44 (347/346). See also Rhodes, P. J., The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972), 100Google Scholar; and, on IG i3 117, Meritt, B. D., ‘Archelaos and the Decelean War’, in Classical Studies Presented to Edward Capps (Princeton, NJ, 1936), 246–52Google Scholar. In the last prytany of 329/328, IG ii2 1672.241–2 and 246–7 has payments to the treasurers of the Eleusinian goddesses οὐ μερισάντων τῶν ἀποδεκτῶν (‘when the apodektai had not made an allocation’); and Papazarkadas, N., Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford, 2011), 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggests that the money was needed urgently and that normal procedure was bypassed.

58 IG i3 84.4–18.

59 See M. B. Walbank, in Agora xix, pp. 149–51, 154–5, 166–7, noting (149–50) that some leases for sacred lands are made by the basileus but others are made by the officials of the cult in question. For different views see Walbank, M. B., ‘Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part IV’, Hesperia 52 (1983), 221, n. 92Google Scholar; M. K. Langdon, in Agora xix, pp. 64–5.

60 E.g. IG i3 23, ML 69 = IG i3 71.

61 IG i3 32 = Clinton, K., Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone (Athens, 2005)Google Scholar, no. 30.8–9 (which I should date 432 or soon after, cf. Clinton's c.432/431); 36.6–11 (424/423).

62 IG i3 395 = Clinton (n. 61), no. 23.3–5 (c.450–445?).

63 IG i3 435.6, 38, 65, 96–7, 122; doubting the identification, Stroud, R. S., The Athenian Empire on Stone (Athens, 2006), 26–32Google Scholar.

64 Contr. Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor (n. 13), 360–1.

65 IG i3 136.36 (413/412?), to be distinguished from the payment for inscription restored in line 39.

66 IG i3 48 bis.5–7 (c.440–430).

67 Prytany, IG i3 73.25–7 (424/423); cf. perhaps 224 (c.430–410), very fragmentary. Month, ML 71 = IG i3 36 (again 424/423). Noticed by Wilhelm, A., ‘Attische Urkunden, iv. xxxi’, SAWW 227.5 (1939), 61–5Google Scholar (= Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde [Leipzig, 1974], iii. 581–5Google Scholar). Wilhelm followed B. Keil in thinking that the month was specified in IG i3 36 because the priestess's term of office was based on the archontic calendar. Van Wees (n. 13), ch. 3, suggests that they already served for a month in the time of Solon.

68 Thuc. 1.96.2; the first Athenian quota list, IG i3 259, is that of 454/453.

69 Woodhead, A. G., ‘The Institution of the Hellenotamiae’, JHS 79 (1959), 149–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; contr. Rhodes, P. J., The Athenian Empire, G&R New Surveys 17 (Oxford, 1985), 6Google Scholar.

70 ML 68 = IG i3 68.18–21 (426/425); e.g. IG i3 365.7, 11, 14, 15–16, 17–18, etc. (432/431).

71 ML 58 = IG i3 52. Linders, T., The Treasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and Their Functions (Meisenheim an Glan, 1975)Google Scholar stresses that the new combined treasury contained monies of the Other Gods but not all their treasures. For a new argument identifying the opisthodomos with the west end of the ‘Doerpfeld temple’ (between the site of the Parthenon and that of the Erechtheum), until the fire of 406/405 mentioned by Xen. Hell. 1.6.1, see Linders, T., ‘The Location of the Opisthodomos: Evidence from the Temple of Athena Parthenos Inventories’, AJA 111 (2007), 777–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the state's borrowing money from the sacred treasuries during the Peloponnesian War see Fawcett (n. 9).

72 Reported by Prof. C. W. Fornara at a conference at Sunium organized by Mr. A. L. Pierris in July 2006.

73 In IG i3 383 the treasurers of 429/428 record what they took over from their predecessors.

74 Propylaea mentioned in B.3, 9; in B.27–8 ‘from Panathenaea to Panathenaea’ defines the year being used, as in A.27–8, but references to ‘the four archai’ must be to quadrennia based on the Great Panathenaea, as in other financial inscriptions such as IG i3 292.1, 369.1: see Rhodes (n. 57), 235–6.

75 IG i3 292, 317, 343.

76 Ath. pol. 30.2.

77 IG i3 84.28.

78 Two hellenotamiai per tribe in ML 84 = IG i3 375 (410/09); payments for inscription, e.g. ML 85 = IG i3 102.11–12, 35–6 (410/409). There seems no justification for the suggestion of Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor (n. 13), 364, that under the restored democracy the kolakretai were reintroduced and paid the jurors’ stipends: see Rhodes (n. 57), 99, n. 4.

79 Late fifth century, ML 91 = IG i3 117.6–7 (restored) (see also above, p. 211–2); fourth century, Ath. pol. 48.1–2.

80 Ferguson, W. S., The Treasurers of Athena (Cambridge, MA, 1932), 104–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also, more tentatively, Thompson, W. E., ‘Notes on the Treasurers of Athena’, Hesperia 39 (1970), 61–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Ferguson (n. 80), 14.

82 Ibid., 104–5, 118; Woodward, A. M., ‘Two Attic Treasure-records’, HSPh Supp. 1 (1940), 404–6Google Scholar, suggested 346; Lambert, S. D., Rationes Centesimarum. Sales of Public Land in Lykourgan Athens (Amsterdam, 1997)Google Scholar, 269 with n. 204, 287, argues probably before 343/342. Papazarkadas (n. 57), 30, suggests 344/343 or 343/342, coinciding with the beginning of the sacred land leases (Agora xix L 6 etc., with Walbank at p. 156).

83 IG ii2 1264 honours the treasurers of 300/299; the crown awarded to Lysimachus in 1485.A.27–30 is to be dated 299/298: see Ferguson (n. 80), 126; S. M. Burstein, ‘IG ii2 1485A and Athenian Relations with Lysimachus’, ZPE 31 (1978), 181–5.

84 E.g. Rhodes (n. 11), 550.

85 Themelis, P. G., ‘Contribution to the Topography of the Sanctuary at Brauron’, in Gentili, B. and Perusino, F. (eds.), Le orse di Brauron (Pisa, 2002), 112–16Google Scholar; cf. SEG lii 104. This is not included in either of the fascicles of IG ii3 published in 2012, covering 352/351–322/321 and 229/228–168/167. Enactment by the nomothetai (not otherwise attested later than 322/321), the treasurers of the Other Gods (see above, p. 215, with n. 82), and the instructions given to the poletai and the apodektai (see below, p. 224 with nn. 141–4) together require a fourth-century date for the content, but S. V. Tracy dates the inscription ‘close to 200 or even a bit later’ (ap. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1, IV: Treaties and Other Texts’, ZPE 161 [2007], 80Google Scholar [= Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1 b.c. Epigraphical Essays (Leiden, 2012), 208Google Scholar]). See also E. T. Bose, MA dissertation, University of Texas at Austin (2004), and paper read at the CAMWS meeting 2009, who dates the law to the Lycurgan period (I thank Ms Bose for helpful correspondence).

86 See Rhodes (n. 57), 102, n. 7.

87 The hellenotamiai appear in SEG xxviii 46.18. This is usually dated 403/402 or soon after, though Matthaiou, A. P., τὰ ἐν τῆι στήληι γεγραμμένα. Six Greek Historical Inscriptions of the Fifth Century b.c. (Athens, 2011), 71–81Google Scholar, argues for 410/409 or soon after; but the context is lost and even if the usual date is right the reference could well be to earlier practice: see the original publication of this text, Stroud, R. S., ‘Greek Inscriptions, 7: Theozotides and the Athenian Orphans’, Hesperia 40 (1971), 292–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 See Rhodes (n. 57), 103, n. 7, assuming that at any one time payment should normally come from one source, and citing earlier work by A. C. Johnson and W. B. Dinsmoor. For a different view see Henry, A. S., ‘Polis/Acropolis, Paymasters, and the Ten Talent Fund’, Chiron 12 (1982), 97–116, 118Google Scholar; see also Henry, A. S., ‘Provisions for the Payment of Athenian Decrees: A Study in Formulaic Language’, ZPE 78 (1989), 251–67Google Scholar.

89 SEG xxvi 72 = RO 25.47–9 (the council is still involved too).

90 Langdon, in Agora xix, p. 63.

91 IG ii2 141, often dated to the 360s, is as RO 21 tentatively assigned to that period because of its mention of the 10-talent fund.

92 See above, p. 211 with n. 57.

93 On the treasurer see SEG xxxi 67 = RO 29.10–11; on the fund, IG ii2 106.18–19. IG ii2 102 = Tod 129.10–13, mentioning the treasurer, may be earlier than RO 29. IG ii2 21.4–6 is restored to mention both treasurer and fund, and in IG was dated 390/389, but it is too fragmentary to serve as the basis for argument: see Henry 1982 (n. 88), 112–13.

94 IG ii2 120.20–2.

95 Ath. pol. 48.2.

96 IG ii2 29 = RO 19.18–22.

97 See Rhodes (n. 57), 99.

98 Treasurer Dem. 22. Androtion 17 (referring to 356/355) and e.g. IG ii2 1622.388–9 (referring to 346/345).

99 See Dem. 39. Boeotus 1, 17 (referring to 349/348).

100 Stressed by Kallet-Marx (n. 3), 246–7. And there are some signs of a desire to estimate future expenditure, e.g. ML 69 = IG i3 71, trans. Fornara 136.47–8 (though the current text has been reconstructed too adventurously).

101 IG ii2 222 = ii3 452.41–6 (c.334: a maintenance grant of a drachma a day); IG ii2 330 = ii3 327.15–23 (335/334: a gold crown, and others to be awarded in the future); IG vii 4254 = SIG 3 298 = IG ii3 355.35–41 (sic: the earlier editions punctuate differently) (329/328: 100 drachmae for a sacrifice).

102 See Pritchard (n. 24). For recognition by some Athenians after the Social War of 356–355 that the imperial policy had been a failure, see Isoc. 8. Peace; and for recognition that Athens needed healthier finances and that peace would be essential for that see Xen. Vect.

103 On the number of days, see Hansen, M. H., ‘How Often did the Athenian Dikasteria Meet?’, GRBS 20 (1979), 243–6Google Scholar; see also Hansen, M. H., The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford, 1991), 186Google Scholar.

104 Ath. pol. 62.2; contr. for the assembly earlier 41.3.

105 Dem. 39. Boeotus 1, 17 (349/348); see also the threat in Dem. 24. Timocrates 99.

106 M. H. Hansen, Eisangelia (Odense, 1975), 51–5; see also Hansen (n. 103), 159.

107 SEG xlvii 96 = RO 26.54–5 (374/373), [Dem.] 49. Timotheus 12, 16 (373), see also [Dem.] 50. Polycles 10 (362); on merismos, see IG ii2 212 = RO 64 = IG ii3 298.39–44 (347/346); the treasurer happens not to be clearly attested until IG ii2 1443.12–13 (344/343). However, A. P. Matthaiou, ‘τρία ᾿Αττικὰ ψηϕίσματα’, in Themos and Papazarkadas (n. 28), 83–7, restores this treasurer, ὁ ταμ]ίας ὁ τῶν [στρατι|ωτικῶν, as the officer paying for inscription in a fragmentary decree which he assigns to the ‘cutter of IG ii2 17’ (Tracy, S. V., ‘A Major Athenian Letter-Cutter, ca. 410 to ca. 380: The Cutter of IG ii2 17’, in Bakewell, G. W. and Sickinger, J. P., [eds.], Gestures. Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy Presented to Alan L. Boegehold [Oxford, 2003], 351–63Google Scholar), whose activity is attested 409/408–386/385: we have no other evidence for payment for inscription by this treasurer until 303/302 (see below, p. 225 with n. 148).

108 Liban. hyp. 4 to Dem. 1. Ol. 1. The earliest reference (which I owe to Prof. P. Wilson) is a fragment from Aristophanes’ Phoenissae, produced some time after 412 (Ar. fr. 575 Kassel and Austin, from Poll. 7.199: date Kassel and Austin). Csapo, E., ‘The Men who Built the Theatres: Theatropolai, Theatronai, and Arkhitektones’, in Wilson, P. (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals. Documentary Studies (Oxford, 2007), 97–121Google Scholar, discusses the charge, linking its introduction with the original private provision of a wooden theatre but not suggesting a date.

109 For Pericles see Plut. Per. 9.1, 34.2; for Agyrrhius, Harp θεωρικά (θ 19 Keaney); for Eubulus and Diophantus, Just. Epit. 6.9.1–5, schol. Aeschin. 3. Ctesiphon 24 (65 Dilts), Philinus fr. 3 Sauppe ap. Harp. θεωρικά (Eubulus responsible for name), Hes. δραχμὴ χαλαζῶσα (δ 2351) (Diophantus).

110 For Pericles and jury pay see Ath. pol. 27.3–4; for Agyrrhius and assembly pay, Ath. pol. 41.3.

111 Rhodes (n. 57), 105; and more firmly Rhodes (n. 11), 514; cf. Ruschenbusch, E., ‘Die Einführung des Theorikon’, ZPE 36 (1979), 303–8Google Scholar, Pritchard (n. 24), 22.

112 Dem. 1. Ol. 1, 19–20; Dem. 3. Ol. 3, 10–13, 31; [Dem.] 59. Neaera 4–6; Liban. hyp. 5 to Dem. 1. Ol. 1. For a slightly different view see Hansen, M. H., ‘The Theoric Fund and the Graphe Paranomon against Apollodorus’, GRBS 17 (1976), 235–46Google Scholar.

113 For 339/338 see Philoch. FGrH 328 F 56a; after Chaeronea, Rhodes (n. 57), 105, n. 8, contr. Mitchel, F. W., ‘Demades of Paeania and IG ii2 1493, 1494, 1495’, TAPhA 93 (1962), 224–5Google Scholar with 224, n. 33.

114 Ath. pol. 43.1; for the theoric fund see also Aeschin. 3. Ctesiphon 25.

115 See Rhodes (n. 57), 235 (from IG ii2 223 = ii3 306.C.5–6; Aeschin. 3. Ctesiphon 25 is compatible either with a single official or with a board).

116 Aeschin. 3. Ctesiphon 25.

117 Hansen (n. 112), 241, doubts whether there were substantial surpluses in the fund.

118 Ath. pol. 47.2. However, two inscriptions from the second half of the century refer to the placing of contracts for public works in a dikasterion: IG ii2 1669.8, 21, etc., 1678.aA.27–8.

119 See Rhodes (n. 57), 105–7, 237–40; Rhodes (n. 11), 515, 552.

120 See above, p. 208.

121 G&R's referee suggests that this may be seen as institutionalizing the financial expertise that was previously a characteristic of the politicians who made speeches in the assembly (see above, p. 203–4, n. 3).

122 Aeschin. 3. Ctesiphon 24.

123 Hansen, M. H., The Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century b.c. (Odense, 1974), 56–8Google Scholar; Rhodes, P. J., ‘On Labelling 4th-century <Athenian> Politicians’, LCM 3 (1978), 208–9Google Scholar.

124 E.g. [Plut.] X Orat. 841c.

125 Rhodes (n. 57), 235–7, following Lewis, D. M., Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History (Cambridge, 1997 [but this chapter first written c.1957]), 212–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

126 [Plut.] X Orat. 842e–f, with, e.g., Davies (n. 43), 415, cf. 351.

127 See Rhodes (n. 11), 515–16.

128 Xenocles, Agora xvi 77.7–9; and see on him Davies (n. 43), 414–15; Lambert, S. D., ‘Ten Notes on Attic Inscriptions’, ZPE 135 (2001), 56–7Google Scholar; Lambert, S. D., ‘On IG ii2 546’, ZPE 141 (2002), 122–4Google Scholar (= Lambert [n. 85], 231–3, 296–8). For Lycurgus, see Hyperides fr. 118 Jensen = Kenyon = 23 Burtt; and that Hyp. 5. Demosthenes 28 refers to Lycurgus is tentatively supported by Whitehead, D., Hypereides. The Forensic Speeches (Oxford, 2000), 448–50Google Scholar, against the alternative suggestion of Lewis (n. 125), 222–4, that it refers to Demosthenes in his year epi to theorikon.

129 Ath. pol. 43.1 refers to regular administrative posts as those περὶ τὴν ἐγκύκλιον διοίκησιν (‘concerned with the recurring administration’).

130 Rhodes, P. J., ‘διοίκησις’, Chiron 37 (2007), 349–62Google Scholar.

131 Aeschin. 2. Embassy 149 with Rhodes (n. 130), 352; contr. Rhodes (n. 11), 516, suggesting that he might have been theoric controller.

132 E.g. [Plut.] X Orat. 841b–d, 842f (revenues increased from 60 talents – emend to 600? – to 1,200 talents). See also the claim for the period of Eubulus’ predominance that revenues had been increased from 130 talents to 400 talents: Dem. 10. Phil. 4, 37–8. For ways in which the revenues were increased see Davies (n. 3), 509–10.

133 IG ii2 1672.11. Note IG i3 78.33, where keleuein is contrasted with epitattein; at a later point in the same inscription, payment was made for a sacrifice in accordance with a decree of the council that he proposed (IG ii2 1672.302).

134 Agora xvi 77.10–15. Contr. Eide, T., ‘μερίσαι and δοῦναι in Athenian Fourth Century Decrees’, SO 59 (1984), 21–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggesting that here we have an anticipation of the Hellenistic usage (on which see below) by which merisai does not mean ‘allocate (in a merismos)’ but is simply equivalent to dounai and means ‘pay’.

135 Lewis, Selected Papers (n. 125), 227–9.

136 Agora xvi 75 = RO 81.A = IG ii3 447. I, on which see Fawcett (n. 9). In IG vii 4253 = SIG 3 287 = IG ii3 348.10–16 Phanodemus is praised because he νενομοθέτηκεν (‘legislated’) for the quadrennial festival and the other sacrifices at the sanctuary of Amphiaraus, which surely means that he initiated the legislation (cf. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1, I: Decrees Honouring Athenians’, ZPE 150 [2004], 110Google Scholar, n. 4 [= Lambert (n. 85), 44, n. 84], suggesting another instance in IG ii2 433 SEG xvi 57 = IG ii3 481), not that he was merely a member of the board of nomothetai that approved the legislation (Tracy, S. V., Athenian Democracy in Transition [Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1995], 45, n. 55Google Scholar).

137 See above, n. 101.

138 IG ii2 351 + 624 = RO 94 = IG ii3 352.11–20 (330/329). Probably ‘the war’ was the war of Agis of Sparta against Macedon in 331–330, in which Athens did not in fact take part; ‘Panathenaic’ ought probably to have been attached to the stadium rather than the theatre.

139 IG ii2 1191, Anth. Pal. 9.147.

140 Davies (n. 3), 511–12.

141 For apodektai, see IG ii2 365.b.6 = ii3 375.38, 1631.34–5; poletai, IG ii2 463.36, 1589.1 (in 463.36 the man epi tei dioikesei works with the poletai as the theoric and stratiotic treasurers had done earlier). On the appearance of both poletai and apodektai in SEG lii 104 see above, n. 85.

142 Agora xix P 52–6.

143 Hesp. xxxvii 1968, p. 286, no. 23 (B. D. Meritt), with pl. 83 = SEG xxv 187.

144 On much of what follows see Henry, A. S., ‘Athenian Financial Officials after 303 b.c.’, Chiron 14 (1984), 49–92Google Scholar; P. J. Rhodes with Lewis, D. M., The Decrees of the Greek States (Oxford, 1997), 37–55Google Scholar, esp. 38–9. Henry 1989 (n. 88), 267–70, discusses the language used in the late fourth and early third centuries rather than the financial mechanisms. Oliver, G. J., War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens (Oxford, 2007), 223–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, stresses the growing importance of the treasurer of the stratiotic fund.

145 IG ii2 380.14–17.

146 IG ii2 505.62–4.

147 See Rhodes (n. 57), 109–10; Rhodes with Lewis (n. 144), 44.

148 Treasurer of stratiotic fund, Agora xvi 122.29–32; the dating to the same year of IG ii2 806 = Osborne, M. J., Naturalization in Athens (Brussels, 1981–3)Google Scholar, D 48.8–11, IG ii2 809.4–8, and Agora xvi 128.5–9 was doubted by A. G. Woodhead in Agora xvi, p. 202. Treasurer of demos, ek ton koinon chrematon, IG ii2 558 = Osborne (this note), D 47.29–31. That phrase is probably a sign that what used to be separate funds had now been merged in a central treasury (see Osborne [this note], ii.126; contr. Rhodes [n. 57], 109). Epi tei dioikesei, IG ii2 496 + 507 = Osborne (this note), D 61.39–41.

149 IG ii2 500.40–3.

150 There is one inscription, which W. K. Pritchett restored, to mention the treasurer and the assembly's fund, and dated 306/305, but which S. V. Tracy includes in the work of a cutter active between 286/285 and c.239: IG ii2 525 + 675 revised as SEG xxxiv 72. Henry (n. 144), 58–60, considered various possible solutions; Tracy, S. V., Athens and Macedon (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 2003), 80Google Scholar, n. 2, suggests that this may be a later reinscription of the original text.

151 See Henry (n. 144), 60–3.

152 Agora xvi 78.16–21.

153 IG ii2 806 = Osborne (n. 148), D 48.8–11 (restored to fit the stoichedon pattern), IG ii2 500.40–3 (preserved). Dounai is still used sometimes, continuing as late as IG ii2 891=IG ii3 1278.19–21 (188/187).

154 See Henry (n. 144), 63–8: the one instance in which both text and date are secure is IG ii2 641.29–32 (299/298).

155 Ferguson, W. S., ‘Athenian Politics in the Early Third Century’, Klio 5 (1905), 169–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

156 Ferguson, W. S.ap. S. Dow, Prytaneis, Hesperia Supp. 1 (1937), 13, n. 1Google Scholar. Usually, though not quite always, decrees for a prytany refer to a single man (probably that tribe's member of the board) and other decrees refer to the board: see Henry (n. 144), 90.

157 E.g. Osborne (n. 148), ii.155–6, 177.

158 SEG xxxiii 115.36–8.

159 Henry (n. 144), 74–81; Osborne, M. J., ‘The Chronology of Athens in the Mid Third Century b.c.’, ZPE 78 (1989), 212 n. 9Google Scholar, 239 – ‘a (transitory) change’.

160 Rhodes with Lewis (n. 144), 38–9; see also Robert, J. and Robert, L., ‘Bulletin épigraphique’, REG 96 (1983), 96–7, no. 157Google Scholar, noted in SEG xxxiii.

161 E.g. IG ii2 1534.A.14–15 (291/290).

162 See Henry (n. 144), 81–90.

163 For epi tei dioikesei alone, see SEG xxvi 96 = Osborne (n. 148), D 92 = IG ii3 1219.11–13 (late third century). For the stratiotic treasurer alone, see e.g. Agora xvi 224 = IG ii3 1147.47–50 (225/224). For the stratiotic treasurer (always mentioned first) with epi tei dioikesei, see e.g IG ii2 844 = IG ii3 1137.30–2 (228/227). For ‘the treasurer’, see e.g. SEG xxviii 75 = Osborne (n. 148), D 95.33–5 = IG ii3 1178.34–6 (c.203).

164 For epi tei dioikesei, see e.g. Agora xv 187 = IG ii3 1263.29–31, 52–4 (192/191). For the stratiotic treasurer, see first Agora xv 184 = IG ii3 1295.16–18 (182/181). For each to pay for one of two decrees on same stele, see Agora xv 206 = IG ii3 1328.23–5, 64–5 (173/172), Agora xv 240.22–3, 54–5 (140/139).

165 For epi tei dioikesei, see IG ii2 991.9–10 SEG xv 104.113–4; for the stratiotic treasurer, see SEG xxviii 95.22–3.

166 See van Wees (n. 13), ch. 1.

167 See Rhodes, P. J., ‘The Non-literary Written Sources’, in Kinzl, K. H. (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World (Malden, MA, 2006), 45–6Google Scholar.

168 On financial support for the cavalry see Spence, I., ‘Cavalry, Democracy and Military Thinking in Classical Athens’, in Pritchard, D. M. (ed.), War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2010), 111–38Google Scholar.

169 See Pritchard, D. M., ‘Kleisthenes, Participation, and the Dithyrambic Contests of Late Archaic and Classical Athens’, Phoenix 58 (2004), 208–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The statement as I have cautiously formulated it does not seem to me to be undermined by Fisher, N. R. E., ‘Competitive Delights: The Social Effects of the Expanded Programme of Contests in Post-Kleisthenic Athens’, in Fisher, N. and van Wees, H. (eds.), Competition in the Ancient World (Swansea, 2010), 175–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

170 For liturgies see Wilson, P., The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia. The Chorus, the City and the Stage (Cambridge, 2000), 113–4, 279–82Google Scholar (though in general he thinks of the choregia as democratic: e.g. p. 7); for payment in the mildly oligarchic Boeotian federation of the late fifth and early fourth century, see Hell. Oxy. 19.4 Chambers – but for payment as characteristic of democracies see e.g. Arist. Pol. 6.1317b31–8.

171 [Xen.] Ath. pol. 1.13, also 2.9–10.

172 Thuc. 8.65.3, 67.3, 97.1; Ath. pol. 29.5, 30.2 (cf. the fine for absence from the council in 30.6), 33.1.

173 See above, p. 218 with n. 105.

174 Ath. pol. 54.3 with Rhodes (n. 11), 599–603.

175 Ath. pol. 61.1.