Michigan (2016) h/b 272pp £57.95 (ISBN 9780472119424)
The (possibly) Aristotelian Constitution of Athens tells us that Solon established a new system for choosing magistrates which was still operating in the author’s own time, more than two centuries later. This is the kind of detail which easily seems esoteric, peculiar to one place, with little influence on the interesting historical stuff, and tempting to ignore. However B., in this detailed examination of the evidence, makes a convincing case that Solon’s Law was in fact of major importance for the development of Athens as it evolved into democracy and that its effects were indeed as long-lasting as Ath. Pol. suggests.
Solon’s Law deals with the tamiai of Athena, those who had the job of managing the sacred property of the goddess (these were, of course, different from the Hellenotamiai, the state treasurers who controlled the revenue from Athens’ empire during the 5th C BC; part of B’s argument is that these, and the various other managerial functions to do with sacred property which developed as the polis grew, benefited from the principles established by Solon’s Law). These ‘hallowed stewards’ held prestigious posts which ambitious men would fight to obtain. Solon established a more complex system in stages: candidates would be put forward by each tribe, and from those the required number would be chosen by lot. Thus the public authority (the Areopagus) would be in control rather than some powerful family. On the other hand, the office was reserved for the wealthiest class, the pentakosiomedimnoi, so that the office would not lose its prestige and the changes would still have the support of the aristocrats. Archaeological evidence for one Chairion, who was both a tamias and a member of the top class, the Eupatridai, is documented. Similar procedures were used for choosing the nine archons (as Ath. Pol. tells us) and, it is suggested, for the ever-growing numbers of other specialised religious treasurers and magistrates as Athens grew in size.
Chapter 1 of the book discusses Solon’s Law and its operation, and Chapter 2 gives details of other laws of Solon and other magistracies, with special reference to the so-called Calendar (inscribed over the ten years to 399 BC during the restoration of the democracy, when there was a general desire to recover the Solonian traditions). The third chapter investigates what it was like being a sacred treasurer in the late archaic period and the opportunities for patronage which would have made these offices attractive to those who were eligible for them, including the provision of sacrificial banquets on which huge amounts continued to be spent under the later democracy.
The remaining chapters look in more detail at the duties of a tamias of Athena, and specifically at the type of property of which they had charge. This was of two main types: hiera, sacred objects either immovable or used in sacrifices and processions, which could not be converted into money or used to raise loans, and hosia, which developed later as expenditure grew and could be in the form of land or other goods which could produce income; in addition, there was often the need for ad hoc public expenditure (demosia) to make up shortfalls. An underlying theme is the continuing need to fund public religious festivals and sacrifices, which appears to have been unabated during all the political changes of the fifth and fourth centuries and grew ever more costly as time went on.
B.’s argument and his handling of the evidence are extremely thorough. The nature of the evidence is his major difficulty: apart from odd references in the fourth-century orators and passages like that quoted from Ath. Pol., most of it is from inscriptions containing dedications etc.; sometimes these are great in number but usually fragmentary and requiring a good deal of faith in the reading. B.’s conclusions are therefore, inevitably, inductive and hypothetical in nature, and, as he says himself, it is quite possible that a single new discovery could radically reshape his whole thesis. But he claims to be the first writer to attempt an overarching view of the people who managed the Athenian sacred treasuries and their place in the city.
It is not a simple read: B.’s style is not always easy to follow, and passages sometimes need re-reading two or three times to understand them properly; also, he assumes basic historical knowledge, so this is not for the novice. But it repays the effort. As one would expect with a book of this calibre, the notes are thorough and extensive, and there are full bibliography and indices. An appendix gives details of the Chairion altar and epitaph; though the book is long, I would quite have liked another one giving an overview of the epigraphic evidence.
Colin McDonald