¹ The following are the chief contributions to the discussion in the past few years:—(1) Meyer, Ed., Forschungen, ii. pp. 411–436Google Scholar; (2) Köhler, , Ber. Berl. Akad. 1900, pp. 803–817Google Scholar; (3) Costanzi, , Riv. di Filologia, 1901, pp. 84–108Google Scholar; (4) Busolt, , Griech. Geschichte, iv. pp. 1456–1513Google Scholar; (5) May, , Die Oligarchie der 400 in Athen im Jahre 411 (Halle, 1907)Google Scholar; (6) Judeich, , Rhein. Museum, 1907, pp. 295–308Google Scholar; (7) Kuberka, , Klio, 1907, pp. 341–356Google Scholar; 1908, pp. 206–212; (8) Kriegel, , Der Staatsstreich der Vierhundert in Athen 411 v. Chr. (Bonn, 1909)Google Scholar; (9) Siegmund, , Thukydides und Aristoteles über die Oligarchie des Jahres 411 in Athen (Böhmisch-Leipa, 1909)Google Scholar; (10) Kahrstedt, U., Forschungen (Berlin, 1910), pp. 237–266Google Scholar; (11) Sadl, , Die oligarchische Revolution vom Jahre 411 (Pola, 1910)Google Scholar; (12) Ledl, , Weiner Studien, 1910, pp. 38–54Google Scholar; (13) A. v. Mess, , Rhein Museum, 1911, pp. 366–79Google Scholar.

The present author is chiefly indebted to the treatises of Ed. Meyer and Kahrstedt. He has been unable to see the article by Volquardsen, in Verhandlungen der 48 Philologenversammlung in Hamburg, 1905Google Scholar.

² viii. 67, § 1.

³ Ath. pol. 29. § 2.

⁴ Harpocrntion, s.v. συγγραφεῖσ-ἦσαν δὲ οἰ μέν πάντες συγγραφεῖς τριάκοντα οἰ τότε αἱρεθέντες καθἀ φησιν ᾿Ανδροτίων τε καὶ φιλόχοροσ

The inclusion of the πρόβουλοι in the board of ξυγγραφεῖσ is attested by the fact that they were commonly held responsible for the subsequent revolution (Lysias, xii. 65; Arist., Xhet. iii. 18. 2)Google Scholar. This belief could never have sprung up if the πρόβουλοι had always been restricted to their original administrative functions.

Costanzi (loc. cit. pp. 89–91) has endeavoured to rescue Thueydides' authority by explaining away the excedent 20 ξυγγραφεῖσ as mere ciphers, and by declaring the identity between the remaining 10 ξυγγραφεῖσ and the πρόβουλοι to be accidental. But nobody is likely to believe in a tenfold coincidence such as he supposes: clearly the πρόβουλοι were nominated as such to the Revising Committee, whose reference included inter alia economic reforms such as the πρόβουλοι were eminently qualified to initiate. As to the supplementary members, it is quite arbitrary to assume that they were men of straw, and even if this were the case it would not alter the fact that officially they were quite on a par with the πρόβουλοι

⁵ viii. 67, § 1. The chronology is Busolt's.

⁶ 29, § 1.

⁷ viii. 1, §§ 3, 4: ἐδόκει . . . .τῶν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν τι ἐς εὐτέλειαν σωφρονίσαι . . . . πάντα τε . . . . ἐτοῖμοι ἠσαν εὐτακτεῖν The expressions σαφρονίσαι are εὐτακτεῖν significant: they were current euphemisms for an oligarchic type of government.

The mere fact of πρόβουλοι having been appointed to mend the finances in itself suffices to prove that the Athenians were contemplating some changes in their constitution. Financial reform could not be carried to any length without the restriction of μισθός and μισθός was the κόλλα τοῦ δήμου Virtually the πρόβουλοι were a Revising Committee from the first.

⁸ Thuc. viii. 53–4.

⁹ Thncydides hints as much when he says in viii. 67, § 1:—ἐν τούτῳ οὖν τῷ καιρῷ οἰ περὶ τὸν Πείσανδρον ἐλθόντες εὐθύς τῶν λοιπῶν εἴχοντυ

¹⁰ viii. 67, § 2: ἐσήνεγσαν οἰ ξυγγραφεῖς ἄλλο μὲν οὐδέν αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἐχεῖναι μὲν ᾿Αθηναίων ἀνατεὶ εἰπεῖν γνώμην ἠν ἁν τις βού ληται ἤν δὲ τις τὸν εἰπόντα ἤ γράψηται παρα νόμων ἤ ἄλλῳ τῳ τρόπῳ βλάψῃ μεγάλας ζημίασ ἐπέθεσαν

¹¹ 29, §§ 4, 5.

An attempt has been made by Meyer (p. 419) to reconcile the two stories by supposing that the substantial resolutions, though technically brought forward by someone else, were in point of fact inspired by the ξυγγραφεῖσ Apart from other objections to this view (see below), the emphasis with which Thucydides denies to the ξυγγραφεῖσ any large share in the proceedings of the day shows that they were in his opinion in no wise responsible for the subsequent resolutions.—See esp. Kahrstedt, pp. 243, 250 n.

¹² Kahrstedt, p. 243. The same author contends that the report of the ξυγγραφεῖσ must in the first instance have been referred to the democratic Council, and that this body would never have sanctioned the reforms which Aristotle includes in the report, because these were tantamount to its own abolition (pp. 240–1, 245). But (a) in spite of Kahrstedt's arguments it cannot be regarded as certain that the Council had any say in the matter; (b) the reforms enumerated by Aristotle in no way threatened the Council: the new Ecclesia of property holders would have needed a Council to pre-consider its business and to direct the magistrates just as much as the unrestricted Ecclesia ever had done.

¹³ This consideration tells with no less force against Meyer's theory (see above), that the ξυγγραφεῖσ made Peisander their mouthpiece. Had there been any collusion, precisely the contrary relation between them might have been expected.

¹⁴ Kahrstedt himself confesses in another passage (p. 243) that some limits must be imagined to Aristotle's (or his informant's) power of misinterpreting documents. In arguing against a suggestion by Kuberka, (Klio, 1907, pp. 348Google Scholarsqq.) that the report of the ξυγγραφεῖσ as given by Aristotle was not carried in full, but that its constructive portion was overridden by amendments proposed by Peisander, he justly points out that in this case the official document would have contained not only the γνώμη ξυγγραφέων but also a rider, with the rubric ὀ δεῖνα εἶπε τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθάπερ τοισ ξυγγραφεῦσιν etc., and that this rider could not well have been overlooked by any one who had made first-hand use of the archives.

¹⁵ See the speech Pro Polyslrato ([Lysias] Or. xx.). In § 13 we read ὐμῶν (i.e. the Athenian Ecclesia) ψηφισαμένων πεντακισχιλίοισ παραδοῦναι τὰ πράγματα This proves beyond doubt that the Five Thousand were a theoretically existent body during the later course of the revolution.

From § 13 it may be inferred with certainty that Polystratus was one of the καταλογεῖσ and from § 2 we learn that he was αἰρεθεὶς ὐπὸ τῶν φυλετῶν This last point tallies exactly with Aristotle's description (29, § 5):—ἐλέσθαι δ᾿ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς ἐκάστης ἐκάστης δέκα ἄνδρας . . . οἴτινες καταλέξουσι τούς πεντακισχιλίουσ

¹⁶ Thucydides merely states that the programme put forward by the revolutionists in the early stages of the movement included a restriction of the franchise to ‘not more than 5000’ (viii. 65, § 3). But he nowhere indicates when and by whom this scheme was embodied in a bill and put before the Ecclesia.

The καταλογεῖσ are not mentioned by him at all.

¹⁷ viii. 89, § 2; 92, § 11; 93, § 2.

¹⁸ Ath. Pol. 32, § 3.

¹⁹ Ath. Pol. 30, § 1: κυρωθέντων δὲ τούτων (the report of the ξυγγραφεῖσ) εἴλοντο σφῶν αὐτῶν οἰ πεντακισχλιοι τοὺς ἀναγρά ψοντας τὴν πολιτείαν ἐκατὸν ἄνδρασ

Ibid. 32, § 1: οἰ μέν οὖν ἐκατὸν οἰ ὐπὸ τῶν πεντακισχιλίων αἰρεθέντες ταύτηι ἀνέγραψαν τὴν πολιτείαν

²⁰ Op. cit. pp. 426–433. The decisive arguments are these: (e) The whole subsequent course of the revolution is inexplicable save on the assumption that the Five Thousand never met, and indeed never could meet, because their membership had not been determined. Unless this point is taken for granted, Thucydides' account, which is our only account, of the later stages of the revolution, falls to the ground. (b) In the speech Pro Polystrato, § 13, it is alleged that Polystratus as καταλογεύσ enrolled not 5000 but 9000 members. Such a plea could not have been made if an authentic list of approximate 5000 heads had ever been published: the falsehood would have been too barefaced (Ledi p. 46). (e) After the fall of the Four Hundred, when the government was made over nominally to the ‘Five Thousand,’ this term was made to include ὀπόσοι ὔπλα παρέχονται (Thuc. viii. 97, § 1). Such a definition would have been quite unnecessary if a ready made list of 5000 had then been available.

It has been suggested that although the Five Thousand were never completely constituted and took no part in the later stages of the revolution, yet a quorum was appointed (Ballet, , Musée Belge, 1898, p. 13Google Scholar; Volquardsen, pp. 128 sqq.), or an assembly τῶν ὄπλα παρεχο μένων was convened in its stead (Kenyon, ad Ath. Pol. 30Google Scholar, § 1: 3rd ed.), and elected the Constituent Committee of ἀναγραφεῖσ in the manner outlined by Aristotle. This hypothesis hardly saves the credit of Aristotle, whose account even on this showing would be substantially wrong. Nor does it square well with Thucydides. Had the ‘Five Thousand’ ever been convened in however imperfect a form, they could hardly have been eclipsed during the later stages of the movement to the extent which Thucydides supposes. (May, p. 67.)

²¹ Ath. Pol. 30–32, § 1.

²² The expression used by him is κυρωθέντων τούτων ὐπὸ τοῦ ολήθουσ (32, § 1). It is a matter of dispute whether πλῆθοσ refers to the Five Thousand or to the democratic ἐκκλησία

²³ 32, § 1.

²⁴ 30, § 2: τῶν δὲ στρατηγῶν . . . .τὴν αἴρεσιν ἐξ ἀοάντων τοιεῖσθαι τῶν πεντακισχιλίων

²⁵ The administration was confided turn and turn-about to four sections of the Five Thousand, which between them comprised its full membership of men above 30 years of age (30, § 3). Each section would thus be about one thousand strong.

²⁶ 30, §6: τὸν δὲ μὴ ἰόντα εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον . . . . ὀφείλειν δραχμὴν τῆς ἠμέρας ἐκάστης

²⁷ The Four Hundred were to be elected ἐκ προκρίτων οὔς ἄν ἐλωνται οἰ φυλέται τῶν ὐπέρ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονότων (31, §2).

Meyer (p. 426 and n.) suggests that the electorate was terrorised into returning the candidates submitted by the Four Hundred. This might have been practicable for once, but could not easily have been repeated. In an adjacent passage Meyer expresses his surprise that any oligarch at all should have bee returned on the system described by Aristotle.

²⁸ [Lys.] xx. § 2.

²⁹ Kriegel, p. 31.

³⁰ P. 254.

³¹ In a treasure list of 412/11 B.C. (I.G. i. 184) the earlier entries are dated in the usual style. A later entry, belonging to the summer of 411 B.C., is dated ἀπὸ τῆς πρυ[τανείασ] etc., thus showing that the cycle of prytanies had been interrupted.

³² Aristoteles und Athen, ii. pp. 114, 116.

³³ P. 99.

³⁴ Pp. 433–5.

³⁵ P. 5.

³⁶ viii. 86, § 3.

³⁷ viii. 93, § 2.

³⁸ viii. 67–70.

³⁹ This point has been called into doubt. At the outset of his narrative Thucydides merely says that episode (3) occurred ἤδη ὔστερον which might mean anything. Further down, however, he explains that episode (3) happened τῇ ἠμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ which must refer to the meeting-day of the packed Ecclesia at Colonus.

⁴⁰ See above, pp. 3–5.

⁴¹ In a previous chapter (65, § 3) Thucydides relates that the revolutionists had made propaganda in favour of constituting a body of Five Thousand. But he nowhere records the enactment of this measure, which certainly was a sufficiently important step in the revolution to deserve explicit mention. The καταλογεῖς are not brought into notice by him at all.

⁴² See the pertinent inquiries made by Kahrstedt (pp. 238–240, 246) and Ledi (p. 53).

⁴³ Köhler, p. 808, n. 1.

⁴⁴ Busoit, p. 1478, n. 1.

⁴⁵ Pp. 244–6.

⁴⁶ P. 308.

⁴⁷ Judeich himself has expressed doubts on the applicability of these documents (p. 301).

⁴⁸ The sequence of events as given above fits in well with the dates provided by Aristotle (32, § 1): Thargelion 14th for the dissolution of the old Council; Thargelion 22nd for the installation of the permanent Council of Four Hundred. The interval of eight days would be taken up with the convocation of the Ecclesia at Colonus and the election of the new Council in accordance with the vote of that assembly. In the meantime the government was no doubt carried on by the arch-conspirators without legal sanction.

There is no need to suppose, with Judeich (p. 305), that the event of Thargelion 14th was the formal abrogation of the Council (by the Ecclesia at Colonus), and not its actual dispersion (by the coup d'état of the conspirators). The date in question may quite well have been preserved owing to the fact that no records of the old Council subsequent to Thargelion 14th remained over in the Athenian archives. At the same time it is not impossible that, as Thucydides assert s, the actual dispersion of the old.Council and its formal dissolution at Colonus took place on the same day. In this case the date Thargelion 14th may of course be made to do duty for both events.

⁴⁹ Doubts have been raised as to the election of five πρόεδροι as a nucleus for the new Council (Köhler, p. 811; Kuberka, p. 352; Ledl. p. 53). Unless we retain our belief in Aristotle's ‘provisional’ constitution as belonging to this context, there is no need here to cavil at Thucydides. It is probable enough that the πρόεδροι were chairmen as well as leaders of the Four Hundred, as the name declares.

Many critics have adopted the suggestion of Wilamowitz (op. cit. ii p. 357) that the πρόεδροι chose the 100 καταλογεῖς ex officio as members of the new Council. The theory is attractive, because the καταλογεῖς in virtue of their occupation would best know how to co-opt safe men into the remaining 300 seats. But there is nothing in the speech Pro Polystrato to compel such a conclusion. Also it is improbable that all the καταλογεῖς were sufficiently convinced oligarchs. In any case the question is of slight importance.

⁵⁰ 32, § 3.

⁵¹ viii. 70, § 2; 71, § 3; 86, § 9; 90, §§ 2–6.

⁵² [Plutarch, ], Vitae X. Oratorum, i. §§ 23–27Google Scholar.

⁵³ It is sufficient here to point to the hopeless diversity of modern opinion on the nature and value of our informants' sources.

⁵⁴ The former view is expressed by Ledl (p. 47), the latter by May (p. 64), Kahrstedt (pp. 254–5) and, more emphatically, by v. Mess (pp. 366–376.)

⁵⁵ To quote but a few glaring instances, it is notorious that Andocides and Isocrates distorted Athenian history with the utmost sang froid.

⁵⁶ One such board was appointed after the fall of the Four Hundred (Thuc. viii. 97, § 2), another after the fall of the Thirty Tyrants (Andocides, , De Mysteriis, §§ 82–4Google Scholar).

⁵¹ Ledl, who argues cleverly against the supposed indebtedness of Aristotle to an oligarchic pamphlet, points out that his information cannot at all events have come from a ‘Theramenic’ source. Such a record would have been quite explicit about the unreality of the Four Hundred and about Theramenes' attempts to call them into being, whereas Aristotle is sadly confused on this point (pp. 40–42).

Similarly it may be argued that the Constitutions did not issue from Isocrates' factory, else they would certainly have ascribed an important rôle to the Areopagus, which in Aristotle's account is conspicuous by its absence.

⁵⁸ Griechische Geschichte, ii. p. 71, n. 2.

⁵⁹ viii. 97, § 2: ἐγίγνοντοδὲκαὶ ἄλλαι ὔστερον πυκναὶ ἐκκλησίαι ἀφ᾿ ὦν καὶ νομοθέτας καὶ πἆλλα ἐψηφίσαντο ἐς τὴν πολιτείαν

⁶⁰ I.G. i. 58. Busoit (p. 1538) connects this committee with the restoration of the Perielean democracy in 1410 B.C. But a return to such a familiar type of government did not necessitate the creation of ξυγγραφεῖσ

⁶¹ I.G. i. 61. Was this the board which Aristotle dates back to the critical period of the revolution and makes responsible for the drafting of his two constitutions (29, § 5; 32 § 1)? If so, his mistake in respect of the ἀναγραφεῖσ is precisely the same as he made ex hypothesi with regard to the Constitutions.

⁶² See n. 59 above.

⁶³ Andoc., De Myst. §§ 81, 82Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, pp. 223–5.

⁶⁴ P. 6.

⁶⁵ Thuc. viii. 97, § 1: τοὺς τετρακοσίοσ παύσαντες τοῖς πεντακισχιλίοις ἐψηφι σαντο τὰ πρἀγματα παραδοῦναι

⁶⁶ 31, § 1: τοῖς δὲ νόμοις οἴ ἄν τεθῶ σιν περὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν χρῆσθαι

⁶⁷ Ch. 31, § 1.

⁶⁸ 31, § 1: καὶ περὶ τῶν νόμων καὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πράττειν τὴν βουλὴν ᾐ ἄν ἠγῶνται συμφέρειν

⁶⁹ Compare the quandary in which the officials of the commonwealth found themselves when a Stuait restoration became imminent, and the efforts which they made to confer a quasi-legal sanction upon their recent acts by getting Cromwell appointed king.

⁷⁰ That the dicasteries were still convened is proved by the document recording the impeachment of Antiphon ([Plutarch, ], Vitae X. Oratorum, i. § 23)Google Scholar. But it is noteworthy that in this case the Council took the initiative by converting itself into a Grand Jury and finding a True Bill against Antiphon.

⁷¹ 31, § 2: τῶν δὲ στρατηγῶν . . . .τὴν αἴρεσιν ἐξ ἁπάντων ποιεῖσθαι τῶν πεfτακισχιλίων τὴν δὲ βουλὴν . . . . ποιήσασαν ἐξέτασιν ἐν ὄπλοις ἐλέσθαι δέκα ἄνδρασ

⁷² viii. 97, § 1.

⁷³ The only evidence in favour of this constitution having been put into operation is derived from an inscription of the period 411/10, in which mention is made of five πρόεδροι (Wilhelm, in Ber. Wien. Akad., Anzeiger der philhist. Klasse, 1897, no. 26, p. 3)Google Scholar. A board of such officials, five in number, is mentioned in Ath. Pol. 30, § 5. But there is nothing to prevent our supposing that these πρόεδροι had also officiated under the ‘provisional’ scheme. On the other hand, the ‘definitive’ constitution can hardly have been carried into practice before 410 B.C. The time required by the ἀναγραφεῖσ (who apparently were allowed four months for their work—Lysias, xxx. § 2—, but in reality took much longer, I.G. i. 61) and by the ξυγγραφεῖσ to prepare the new code of laws, and for the Ecclesia to ratify it, would more than account for the remaining months of the year 411. But early in 410 B.C. the reaction set in by which the complete Periclean democracy was restored. Hence the ‘definitive’ constitution could only have functioned for a few weeks at the outside.

⁷⁴ Wilamowitz, pp. 121–3.

⁷⁵ Andoc., De Myst. §§ 81–2Google Scholar. The supreme authority was vested in a board of twenty, to whom a Council elected by lot was subsequently attached.

⁷⁶ See the ὐπόθεσισ to [Lysias, ] Or. XXXIV., and Wilamowitz, pp. 225–230Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Ath. Pol. 33, § 1.

⁷⁸ In 31, § 1 we read that the Council is directed τὰς ἀρχὰς καταστῆσαι From this it may be inferred that Theopompus had not yet been appointed ἄρχων ἐπώνυμοσ