Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T19:24:59.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double Representation in the Strategia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

D. M. Lewis
D. M. Lewis
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the simultaneous recognition by Jameson and Westlake of the importance o. Plutarch, Nikias 15.2 in the tangled problems of election to the strategia, the discussion has entered a new phase, and the problems are clarified by Professor Dover's article. It is now clear that the formulae which have been thought to indicate ‘chairmanship’ are not reliable guides, but there remains some force in Jameson's contention that double representation of tribes in the strategia arises rather from electing one general ἐξ ἁπάντων to provide a chairman than from any desire to ensure fairness to candidates in a tribe where the post was monopolised over a long period by one candidate. After Dover's article, cases of double representation are left as our sole material for looking at the problem, and my only aim here is to examine some other years where double representation seems possible. I include some negative results and start with one.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 81 , November 1961 , pp. 118 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1961

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.)

References

1 TAPA lxxxvi (1955), 63 ff.

2 Hermes lxxxiv (1956), 110 ff.

3 Earlier discussions are lucidly summarised by Hignett, , History of the Athenian Constitution, 348 ff.Google ScholarEhrenberg, , Sophocles and Pericles, 77 ff.Google Scholar, does not add much to his earlier position (AJP lxvi (1945), 113 ff.). Sealey, , Proceedings of the African Classical Associations i (1958), 65–8Google Scholar, comes down against Jameson, ‘a little reluctantly’.

4 JHS (1960), 61 ff.

5 For the chronological problem, see Gomme, , HCT i 222–4.Google Scholar

6 Philologus I (1891), 86 ff.

7 Sealey, op. cit., is the latest scholar to accept such a ‘double-double’, for 431/430, but his reasoning is not cogent, for it depends both on assigning Phormio to Tribe III and on attributing the campaign of Thuc. ii 58 to 431/430. Few would wish to say that ‘double-doubles’ are impossible, but the present evidence does not impose them.

8 Against ATL iii 276–277, it seems unlikely that an Athenian decree-prescript can have a live archon, a live grammateus, a live epistates, living ambassadors, and a dead proposer. The original treaty with Leontini was certainly proposed by —]ας.

9 Op. cit., 82–7. Sealey, and Jones, (Athenian Democracy, 126, 159)Google Scholar have accepted the main point made here, but it still seems worth setting my observation out in full.

10 Beloch, , Attische Politik, 302Google Scholar, Griechische Geschichte 2 ii. 2, 235; West, , Classical Philology, xix (1924) 202Google Scholar; Gomme, , HCT iii 718.Google Scholar

11 Sealey's lists should be compared. For 427/426, we are in agreement, except for demotics; his list for 426/425 omits Lamachos, Demosthenes and Prokles. I see no good reason to doubt that the two latter were originally elected for 426/425. Sealey disbelieves in by-elections, because they are not attested in the literature, but I think that we are forced to assume them.

12 CQ xxiv (1930), 34 n. 2 (from Ar. Wasps 81).

13 Treu, , Historia v 427Google Scholar, treats it as certain that Demosthenes' command automatically expired in autumn 426. This seems very hard to believe.

14 Müller-Strübing, , Aristophanes und die historische Kritik, 498 ff.Google Scholar; Mayor, , JHS lix (1939), 57 ff.Google Scholar

16 I am sure this is the year. The only obstacle is Wade-Gery's obiter assignment of IG i2 309 to this year (JHS liii (1933), 136), but this will not take much shifting. Wade-Gery has himself long abandoned it.

16 Philologus I (1891), 91.

17 Beiträge, 291.

18 Griechische Geschichte iii. 1 577 n. 1.

19 Griechische Geschichte 2 ii. 2 264.

20 Num. Chron. 1880, 120.

21 Powell's apparatus suggests that P. Oxy. 2100 has Σκιρωνίδην here, but the original editors admitted that the reading was quite uncertain.

22 Isaeus viii is all about a Kiron. The reading Κίρ[ον] in IG i2 592 has now been discarded by Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis no. 382, in favour of Κ[ι]ρ[ and there was never any certainty about the restoration in DAA no. 260, but the fifth-century existence of the name is guaranteed by DAA no. 14.

23 See, e.g., Gernet, , Plaidoyers Civils, i 19–21.Google Scholar

24 On this line of reasoning, it is perhaps by no means certain that there was originally double representation for 407/406. The MSS. of Diodorus xiii 69.3 say that Alcibiades chose Adeimantus general himself. Even as amended, Diodorus puts the election of Adeimantus after Alcibiades' return. However, Thrasybulus appears with Adeimantus here, and Xen. i 4.10 clearly makes his election contemporary with that of Alcibiades. Xen. i. 4.21 gives no clear indication of the date of the election of Adeimantus.

25 Op. cit., 86–7.

26 Hesperia xxi (1952), 114 ff.