.

PSEPHUS
PSEPHUS (ψῆφος). In voting by ballot the Greeks used, according to Pollux (8.16 f., 123), sea-shells (χοιρῖναι) or imitations of such in metal, beans (φρυκτοί), σπόνδυλοι of metal (φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγησαμένων ὅτι ἀπὸ χοιρείων ὀστῶν αὗται ἐγίνοντο, Schol. Dem. c. Tim. p. 747), and ψῆφοι of metal (τετρυπημέναι and ἀτρύπητοι). At Athens in early times sea-shells were in use (Aristoph. Kn. 1332 and Schol. on 1147; Vesp. 332, 349), and probably also beans (Aristoph. Kn. 41: cf. Schömann, Opusc. i. p. 269 ff.), and pebbles (Aristoph. Wasps 110; black ones for condemnation and white ones for acquittal, Plut. Alc. 22, cf. Schol. Aeschin. c. Tim. § 79); in the times of the orators, however, the dicasts used ψῆφοι of metal. These were not balls of metal, but discs with a cylindrical axis (αὐλίσκος) running through the centre and projecting on either side, and this cylinder was either solid (πλήρης ψῆφος) for acquittal, or pierced (τετρυπημένη) for condemnation (Aeschin. c. Tim. § 79; Arist. in Harpocr. s. v. τετρυπημένη, cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 778). Rusopulos (Ἀρχ. Ἐφημ. 1862, p. 305) gives the following measurements of the two specimens preserved in the Collection of the Athen. Arch. Soc. Of the pierced one the diameter of the disc is 0.062 French met., thickness 0.001, length of cylinder 0.043, diameter of cylinder 0.013 at one end and 0.012 at the other. The measurements of the solid one vary but slightly: diameter of the disc 0.061, and of the cylinder 0.01. The specimen described by Vischer (Epigr. u. Archäol. Kleinigk. p. 16 ff.), which is reproduced below, has a somewhat smaller diameter of the disc (0.060) and shorter cylinder (0.0375). The disc bore on

Ancient ψῆφος.

one side the inscription ψῆφος δημοσία, and on the reverse a letter (in the specimens at Athens Γ and Κ), referring to one of the ten sections of the dicasts (Wachsmuth, Archäol. Anz. 1861, p. 223), or more probably to the court (Arist. in Schol. Aristoph. Pl. 278): Special officers (οἱ λαχόντες ἐπὶ τὰς ψήφους) gave to each dicast one of each kind in sight of the parties, when both sides had spoken (Harpoc. l.c.), and the dicasts Walked up to the βῆμα (Dem. F. L. p. 441.311) where two1 boxes (κάδοι, κ α δ ί ς κ ο ι） stood, into each of which they placed. one ψῆφος (the remark of the Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 750, τοῦ κήρυκος τῆν κληρωτρίδα προσφέροντος, ἔβαλον (οἱ δικασταὶ) τὰς ψήφους, is contradicted by Aristophanes' words, κἀπισταίην ἐπὶ τοῖς κημοῖς ψηφιζομένων ὁ τελευταῖος). Of these καδίσκοι one, called κύριος (because the dicast put into it the ψῆφος by which he gave his vote), was made of metal; the other, called ἄκυρος, was made of wood, and into this he dropped the second ψῆφος. In this way that absolute secrecy was secured (κρύβδην ψηφίζεσθαι, in an eisangelia, Lyc. c. Leocr. § 146; in a γραφὴ φόνου, Lys. c. Erat. § 91; in a γραφὴ ἀστρατείας, Lys. c. Alcib. 2.10) which was considered a guarantee for the freedom of voting (Dem. F. L. p. 415.239). For since the old funnel-shaped top of the καδίσκος made of wickerwork (σχοίνινος ἠθμός, Cratinus, fr. 260; Schol. Aristoph. Kn. 1147; Bekk. Anecd. 275, 25; and Photius, s. v. κημός) had been replaced by a top of lead (Lex. Rhet. Cant. s. v. κημός), with an opening filed through large enough to admit one ψῆφος only (διερρινημένον ἐπίθημα εἰς τὸ αὐτὴν μόνην τὴν ψῆφον καθίεσθαι, Schol. Aristoph. l.c.), and with a rim running round (Lex. Rhet. Cant. l.c. μετέωρα εἶχε χείλη ὥστε ἐπισκοτεῖν), it is evident that if the dicast held the ψῆφος sideways by the two ends of the cylinder with thumb and second finger, lowered it to the opening in the lid and pushed it in with the first finger (Hesych. κόγξ . . . . καὶ τῆς δικαστικῆς ψήφου ἦχος: the φιληλιαστὴς gets up in the morning τοὺς τρεῖς ξυνέχων τῶν δακτύλων through being accustomed to hold the ψγ̂φος, Aristoph. Wasps 94 f.), it was not possible for anyone to see if he put in the pierced or the solid one. After all had voted, the κύριος καδίσκος was emptied out on to a table, and the ψῆφοι were counted (cf. Aristoph. Wasps 331 f.).2 Even votes amounted to an acquittal (Antiph. de caed. Her. § 51; Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 252; Aristotle in Lex. Rhet. Cant. s. v. ἶσαι αἱ ψῆφοι, etc.). Euripides (Elect. 1269; Iph. Taur. 1470 f.) connects this principle with the trial of Orestes before the court of Areiopagus, when Athena proclaimed νικᾷ δ᾽Ὀρέστης κἂν ἰσόψηφος κριθῇ (Aesch. Eum. 741). As Kirchhoff (Monatsber. d. K. Pr. Akad. 1874, p. 105 ff.) shows, in trials for murder the βασιλεὺς had a vote (Pollux, 8.90); hence Athena, who acted as ἡγεμὼν in Orestes' trial, having taken off her crown, voted after the eleven dicasts, and by giving her vote to Orestes brought about evenness of votes, and thus his acquittal. A heliastic court always consisted of some multiple of a hundred, + 1, to prevent even votes (Schol. Dem. c. Tim. p. 702.9): thus Pollux (8.48) mentions four hundred and one, two hundred and one, as the numbers of dicasts in two different cases of φάσις (cf. Lex. Rhet. Cant. s. v. λογισταί, Boeckh, Seeur. p. 464, etc.); the common way, however, of indicating the number was, for brevity's sake, to mention the variable constituent, omitting the invariable one. Even votes could therefore only come about by the default of individuals at the last moment (Schömann, de Com. p. 153). The total of votes in C. I. A. ii. No. 778 is four hundred and [p. 2.517]ninety-nine; on the voting in Socrates' trial, cf. Att. Proc. ed. Lipsius, p. 169 n. A similar system of balloting was employed when the dicasts voted on the question of penalty (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 676.167; [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1347.6); hence the verdict on the question guilty or not guilty or for the plaintiff or defendant is called πρώτη ψῆφος (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 197; Dem. F. L. p. 434.290; [Dem.] c. Aristog. i. p. 795.83). In the time of Aristophanes a curious custom was in vogue. Each dicast had a waxen tablet (πινάκιον τιμητικόν, Aristoph. Wasps 167; Pollux, 8.16), on which, if he awarded the heavier penalty, he drew a long line (vertically on the tablet); if the lighter penalty, a short line (horizontally on the tablet): cf. τιμᾶν τὴν μακράν, sc. γραμμήν, Aristoph. Wasps 106, and Photius, s. v. μακρὰν τιμῆσαι, etc.

A different system of voting was in use in the time before the archonship of Eucleides, and this seems in some cases to have been continued also in the fourth century: viz. there were two boxes, one for condemnation and the other for acquittal (ὁ ἀπολλὺς καδίσκος and ὁ ἀπολύων in Phrynichus, Μοῦσαι, B.C. 405; τὸ αἱματηρὸν τεῦχος and τὸ ἐνάντιον κύτος, Aesch. Ag. 788 f.; ὁ θανάτου κ. and ὁ ἐλέου, Scholiast. Aristoph. Wasps 985), and each dicast had one ψῆφος only, which received its meaning from the box into which it was put. The two boxes were, we must suppose, so placed that the nearer one (ἡ προτέρα) was that of condemnation, the further one (ἡ ὑστέρα) that of acquittal: thus in Aristoph. Wasps 987 ff., Philocleon acquits Labes by throwing his vote into the second (ὕστερον) cup (cups being here used instead of urns, 855); cf. also Xen. Hell. 1.7, 9. It is difficult to understand how secrecy was possible with this method of voting, and yet we are clearly told that it was so. Lysias (c. Agor. § 37) complains of the irregular mode of voting introduced by the Thirty in the senate: the ψῆφοι had to be placed on the two tables--this at once makes it open voting--instead of being put into the καδίσκοι, and, further, the vote of condemnation had to be placed on the further table, i. e. on that nearest the seats of the Thirty. The voting in Orestes' trial, too, is conceived of as secret, for the result is not known before the counting of the votes takes place. SchOmann and Sauppe (de Athen. ratione suffr. in iudic. fer. p. 9) suppose that secrecy was secured by the two urns being so placed that the people standing around could not see into which of them the ψῆφος was thrown; but this explanation is insufficient, inasmuch as voting could only be said to be secret if even the other dicasts did not know how each had voted. To meet this difficulty, Lipsius suggests that each dicast had, besides his ψῆφος, some other token to put into the second box. It has not yet been fully established to what extent this mode of voting continued in the fourth century. Lipsius quotes two instances of it, viz. the eisangelia against Leocrates and a δίκη ψευδομαρτυριῶν in Isae. Dicaearch. § 18. As regards the former, the words of Lycurgus have been differently explained: ὑμῶν δ᾽ἕκαστον χρὴ νομίζειν τὸν Λεωκράτους ἀποψηφιζόμενον θάνατον τῆς πατρίδος καὶ ἀνδραποδισμὸν καταψηφίζεσθαι καὶ δυοῖν καδίσκοιν κειμένοιν τὸν μὲν προδοσίας τὸν δὲ σωτηρίας εἶναι καὶ τὰς ψήφους φέρεσθαι τὰς μὲν ὑπὲρ ἀναστάσεως τῆς πατρίδος τὰς δὲ ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας καὶ τῆς ἐν τῇ πόλει εὐδαιμονίας. Whilst Schomann, whom Lipsius follows, identifies the προδοσίας καδίσκος with the ἀπολύων, and the σωτηρίας καδίσκος with the ἀπολλύς, Sauppe supposes that the orator alludes to the κύριος καδίσκος and the ἄκυρος. Directions as to voting may be given in two ways: either the dicast is told which of the two ψῆφοι he is to put into the κύριος καδίσκος, as in Aeschin. c. Tim. § 79, viz. the pierced one, if he thinks Timarchus guilty, the solid one if not; or he is directed into which of the two urns to place the pierced one. Thus in the trial of Leocrates, if he places it in the κύριος, he condemns Leocrates and votes for the safety of the state; if on the other hand he places it in the ἄκυρος, he acquits Leocrates and betrays the state: and these urns may thus in a rhetorical manner be called σωτηρίας καδίσκος and προδοσίας respectively.3 As for the second instance (a δίκη ψευδομαρτυριῶν), there the dicast had clearly but one ψῆφος. For when on the ψῆφοι being taken out of the urns it was evident that the defendant. had been found guilty, the prosecutor allowed the archon μῆ συναριθμεῖν ἀλλὰ συγχέαι τὰς ψήφους, i. e. to mix up the ψῆφοι of the two urns (of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively), not to count those in each; if two kinds of ψῆφοι had been used, and therefore some of each had been placed in the κύριος, it would have been rather a question of διαριθμεῖν (Szanto, Wiener Stud. 1881, p. 28 f.). The same system seems to have been regularly in use, when, as in inheritance cases, there were several parties before the court, to one of whom an estate or some other thing was to be adjudged, and where it was customary to have as many boxes as there were parties, or at least parties in distinct interests ([Dem.] c. Macart. p. 1053.10, καὶ αἱ ψῆφοι ὀλίγαις πάνυ ἐγένοντο πλείους . . . . ἐν τῷ Θεοπόμπου καδίσκῳ ἢ ἐν τῷ τῆς γυναικός: cf. Isae. Hagn. § 21 f.). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 934 ff.)

As regards the senate, Pollux (8.19) says, ἡ βουλὴ οἱ πεντακόσιοι φύλλοις ἀντὶ ψήφων ἐχρῶντο. This refers to the expulsion of an unworthy member by this body, the votes being written on leaves (Harpocr. s. v. ἐκφυλλοφορῆσαι); it was followed by a second vote where ψῆφοι were used (Aeschin. c. Tim. § 111 f. and Schol. ad l.c.), when the person expelled might be restored to his place in the senate (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 246 f.). The Etym. Magnum, s. v., says that beans were used at first in voting, and that leaves were substituted on account of a fraud practised with the beans. When an eisangelia was laid before the senate, they gave their verdict by secret ballot, whether the defendant was guilty or not; and if he was found guilty, they voted on a second day by show of hands (διαχειροτονία） whether they should sentence him to a fine of 500 drachmas, which it was competent for them to impose, or hand him over to a court ([Dem.] c. Euery. et [p. 2.518]Mnes. p. 1152.42 f.; Aeschin. c. Tim. § 35, lex). Secret voting in deciding the question guilty or not guilty was here the rule, and Lysias complains of the irregularity introduced by the Thirty, viz. that the votes should be placed, not in boxes, but openly on tables (c. Agor. § 37). Similarly the Thirty introduced open voting in the popular assembly (Xen. Hell. 2.4, 9: cf. the action of the oligarchs in Megara in B.C. 424, Thuc. 4.74). Here the usual method of voting was by show of hands (χειροτονία); but on the occasions when the ballot was employed, it was deemed important that the voting should be secret, and that the numbers should be accurately counted. Thus to pass a psephisma for the naturalisation of a foreigner ([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375.89), or to grant liberty (ἄδεια) to speak concerning a disfranchised person or a state debtor (Dem. c. Tim. p. 715.46), it was necessary that 6,000 persons should vote in secret (not a majority of 6,000). The same regulation applied to ostracism [EXSILIUM], both as regards number of voters and secrecy of voting (στρέφοντες τὴν ἐπιγραφήν, Philochorus in Lex Rhet. Cant. s. v.). When the assembly acted in a judicial capacity, the proceedings were probably the same as those detailed in the προβούλευμα concerning the generals in Xen. Hell. 1.7, 9: διαψηφίσασθαι Ἀθηναίους ἅπαντας (i. e. the 6,000 necessary for νόμοι ἐπ᾽ Fränkel, Att. Geschworenger, p. 18) κατὰ φυλάς, θεῖναι δὲ εἰς τὴν φυλὴν ἐκάστην δ̓ύο ὑδρίας: ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῃ δὲ τῇ φυλῇ κήρυκα κηρύττειν, ὅτῳ δοκοῦσιν ἀδικεῖν οἱ στρατηγοὶ . . . . εἰς τὴν προτέραν ψηφίσασθαι, ὅτῳ δὲ μή, εἰς τὴν ὑστέραν. This mode of voting was in no way irregular, as Löschcke shows (Jahrb. f. Philol. 1876, p. 755 f.); the irregularity consisted, among other things, in the fact that it was proposed to vote upon the case of all the accused persons at once (μιᾷ ψήφῳ, Xen. l.c. 26, or ἀθρόοι, Plat. Apol. Socr. 23 B; cf. Lys. c. Eratosth. § 52), not κατὰ ἕνα ἕκαστον (Xen. l.c. 23, 34). This was, however, not specially ordained by the psephisma of Cannonus, as Grote thinks (Hist. of Gr. vii. p. 438 n.), but was a generally recognised principle of Attic law (Bamberg, Herm. 1878, p. 509 ff.; Philippi, Rh. M. 1880, p. 607 ff.).

Secret voting was also practised when the members of a phratry registered a new-born child or an adopted son in φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον (Dem. c. Macart. p. 1078.82; cf. the continuation of C. I. A. ii. No. 241 b, published in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1889, No. 7, p. 225); when the demotae entered the name of the youth in the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον (Dem. c. Eubul. p. 1318.61; Euxitheus learned the fact of Eubulides not having voted against him only from the circumstance that all had voted for him), and in a διαψήφισις (Suidas, s.v. Dem. c. Eubul. p. 1302.13 f. speaks of ψῆφοι: Pollux, 8.18, says that (ψύλλα were used on such occasions); cf. also C. I. A. ii. No. 578, 1. 16 ff., τῷ δὲ εὐθύνῳ μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐξελεῖν τὴν εὔθυναν ἐὰν μὴ τοῖς πλέοσιν δόξει τῶν δέκα τῶν αἱρεθέντων διαψηφιζομένοις κρύβδην.

The people or senate or jury were said ψηφίζεσθαι, ψῆφον φέρειν or τιθέσθαι or διαφέρειν (Thuc. 4.74; Xen. Symp. 5, 8), to vote, or give their vote or judgment (ψῆφον τιθέναι in Dem. de Cor. p. 304.229, is to cast accounts). The presiding magistrate or officer, who called on the people to give their votes, was said ἐπιψηφίζειν or τὴν ωῆφον ἐπάγειν or διδόναι (Lys. c. Alcib. 2.2; Dem. c. Mid. p. 542.82, etc.), the people ἐπιψηφίζεσθαι: ψηφίζεσθαί τινι (Isae. Cleon. § 38, etc.) is sententiam ferre pro aliquo = τὴν ψῆθον διδόναι or φέρειν τινί (Dem. c. Mid. p. 575.188, etc.). Ψηφίζεσθαι, to vote, to resolve, ἀποψηφίζεσθαι, to acquit, and other derivations from ψῆφος, are often used metaphorically, where the method of voting was χειροτονία, and conversely (Schömann, de Com. p. 123 f.). [C.R.K] [H.H]

(Appendix). Unfortunately the greater portion of the detailed account of the procedure in the law-courts is either lost or exists only in a very mutilated condition. On p. 168 ff. we have the description of the voting: of the two ἀμφορεῖς, one was of metal, ὁ κύριος--the other of wood, ὁ ἄκυρος, placed separate (διαίρετοι); the ἀμφορεὺς of metal is described (Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 1147, and Pollux, 8.123, are correct); ἔπειτα πάλιν [ὁ κήρυξ κηρ]ύττ[ει], ἡ τε [τρυπη]μένη τοῦ πρ[ό]τερο[ν λέγοντος] ἡ [δὲ] πλή[ρης τὸῦ ὕστερον λέγοντος . . . . τῶν ψήφων τοῦ μὲν διω[κόν]τος τὰς τετρυπημένας, τοῦ δὲ φ[εύγοντος] [τὰ]ς πλήρεις: ὁποτέρῳ δ᾽ [ἂν πλείω γ]ένη[ται οὗ]τος νικᾷ. ἂν δὲ [ἴσαι, ἀποφεύγει]. (Cf. Lex. Rhet. Cantabr. s. v. ἴσαι αἱ ψῆφοι αὐτῶν.) Εἶτ]α πάλιν Τιμῶσι, ἂν δεῇ τιμῆσαι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ψηφιζόμενοι, τὸ μὲν σύμβολον ἀποδίδοντες, βακτηρίαν δὲ πάλιν παραλαυβάνοντες (cf. p. 163=Schol. Aristoph. Pl. 278; see Dem. de Cor. p. 298.210), ἡ δὲ τίμησίς ἐστιν πρὸς ἡμίχουν ὕδατος ἑκατέρων. That the clepsydra was filled again for the τίμησις was known from Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 197: ἤδη τὸ τρίτον ὕδωρ ἐγχεῖται τῇ τιμήσει, but only now do we learn the amount of water put in, half a χοῦς. The time allowed was certainly short, considering that in a γραφὴ παραπρεσβείας each side was allowed eleven ἀμφορεῖς (Aeschin. F. L. § 126), and in an iheritance suit each party was allowed one ἀμφορεὺς for the first speech, and the quarter of that, three χόες, for the second. (Dem. c. Macart. p. 1052.8.)

1 Pollux (8.123=Schol. Aristoph. Kn. 1150) alone speaks of there having been one κάδος into which the dicast put whichever of the two ψῆφοι he pleased.

2 Hippodamus suggested a different way of taking the verdict, viz. by means of πινάκια (Arist. Pol. 2.5, 35).

3 In public trials it would seem that only one method of voting was in use after the archonship of Eucleides, viz. that with two ψῆφοι.

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

Ancient Greece

Science, Technology , Medicine , Warfare, , Biographies , Life , Cities/Places/Maps , Arts , Literature , Philosophy ,Olympics, Mythology , History , Images