1This rich and well-documented book ranges beyond the limited bounds set by its title: Hallowed Stewards: Solon and the Sacred Treasurers of Ancient Athens is not restricted to the officials in charge of religious funds as it also deals with the larger theme of sacred finances and property. It is also not confined to the Solonic, or even the later Archaic period, but includes the entire Classical age, from which most documentary evidence exists. Indeed, any treatment of the constitutional history of Archaic Athens must directly or indirectly deal with the Classical period as well. So, if the title is a bit misleading when taken at face value, the A. must be applauded precisely because of the diachronic scope of his work, which provides the first in-depth and contextual treatment of a group of magistrates who performed a crucial, but hitherto under-theorized, role in the institutional history of archaic and classical Athens.

2Bubelis’ book seeks to explain the development of the sacred officials, commonly referred to as tamiai or hieropoioi in the Athenian sources, from the time of Solon’s reforms (594/3 BC). B.’s definition of these officials is pragmatic, excluding non-religious financial officials, as well as non-financial religious personnel, hence his straightforward translation of the term as “sacred treasurers”. From the outset, Bubelis sets his views apart from those — Jacoby most notably among them — who view the fast promulgation of magistracies handling religious funds between the sixth and fourth centuries BC as a conflict between the “state” and the genê, understood to have been firmly embedded in the “elite”. B. rightly argues that the latter proposition is untenable and moves on to discredit the sacred vs. secular opposition in the development of sacred institutions, especially with regard to the role played by the polis, which too often is painted as a “secular” check on the religious authority of the genê. For if such an opposition existed, B. argues, why did not Kleisthenes seize the opportunity to check the religious class, rather than allowing “genê, phratriai, and priests to conduct their affairs and hold their privileges as before?”

3This touches upon the important question why there were so many sacred treasurers when there was an ample class of priests and other cult personnel among the gennetai to take care of the financial needs of the polis’ cultic institutions. In providing an answer to this question, B. rejects Jameson’s suggestion that the growth of the state’s financial stake in the cults happened largely in cooperation with the genê as the sacrificial needs of the polis become more demanding and thus complex. Rather, B. shows that priests and magistrates were conceived as two different kinds of authority, religious and financial, with the genê responsible for the former and the polis for the latter domain. Conceding that the former could and did dispose of its own sacred funds, the major polis cults could never be funded as lavishly without taxation enforced by the state. It was precisely this kind of taxation that remained firmly in control of the polis, through the sacred treasurers whom it appointed. This was not an accommodation arrived at through strive, but rather piecemeal, in as much as “a given cult’s management appeared in need of reform.”

5In conclusion, while Bubelis’ reconstruction of the Archaic office of sacred treasurer (of Athena in particular) is meticulously documented and tightly argued, there will unavoidably remain detractors who take a more skeptical view of the reach of our sources as pertaining to the Solonic period. This may be a problem that is inherently unsolvable and will remain a bone of contention between optimists and pessimists. Even so, the book is the product of fine scholarship and represents an important addition to the ongoing discussion about sacred property.