The Athenian Ecclesia : a collection of articles 1976-1983 9788788073522, 8788073521, 9788788073546, 8788073548

Citation preview

MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN

The Athenian Ecclesia

To Birgitte 7.11. 1983

OPUSCULA GRAECOLATINA (Supplementa Musei Tusculani) Edenda curavit Ivan Boserup Vol. 26

MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN

The Athenian Ecclesia A Collection of Articles 1976-1983

MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS COPENHAGEN 1983

C Mogens Herman Hansen & Museum Tusculaoum Press 1983 Printed in Special-liykkerict Viborg a-s ISBN 87-8807:J.52-l(paperback) ISBN 87-88073-54-8(hardcover) ISSN 0107-8089

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author and publishers wish to thank the editors of

Greekt Roman and Byzantine Studies and ClassicalPhilology for permission to reproduce the articles from their journals.

Preface Over the yean 1976..83 I have published several articles on various aspects of the Athenian eccleria.Many colleagues and friends begin to complain of the increasingnumber of different articles with almost identical titles: 'How/ How Often/When etc .... Did the Athenian Ecclesiaetc.?' They constantly encourage me to write a comprehensive account of the ecclesiaor at least to publish an indexed collection of my articles on the topic. I hope to comply with both demands. There are still too many problems to be solved or at least discussed before I can write a full scale monograph. In 1977 I published in Danish a short general account of the ecclesiaintended for historians who know little or no Greek: Det Athenske Demokrati i 4. dm. f.Kr. (2) Folkefonamlingen (K0benhavn 1977). A revised version of this book will appear next year in Gennan in the Konstanzer Althistorische Vortriigeund Forschungen, XENIA.Preparing this revisededition in GermanI have decided to reprint ten of my articles with addenda and corrigenda, and furthermore to publish for the fint time two new articles on the ecclesia,one on the procheirotonia, and one on the parallels to be drawn between the Athenian ecclesiaand the Swiss Landsgemeinde.By way of introduction I will state some principles of method which apply to all my articles. 1. Because of the sources I tend to limit my investigation to the fourth century B..C. or rather to the period 403/2-322/ 1. (a) We have no reliable sources whatsoever for the sixth century, and it is worth mentioning that all the constitutional reforms ascribed to Solon in fourth-century Athens relate to the people's court, the council of the Areopagus, the council of four hundred and the magistrates. There is no tradition of any Solonian refonn of the ecclesiaitself. {b) For the fifth century we have a number of valuable inscriptions;but many of them relate to the Athenian empire rather than to domestic policy and the working of the democracy. In the historians, espe• cially in Toucydides, Xenophon and the historical part of the A th. PoLI we find some information about the ecclesia,but mostly in connection with the oligarchicrevolutions of 411-10 and 404-03. We learn lea about the ecclesia in the years of democratic rule. The Ath. Pol. ascribed to Xenophon and the comedies by Aristophanes are good sources but difficult to interpret. Plu• tarch's Lives of fifth-century Athenian 'politicians' are often used by historians discussing the ecclesiabut are not reliable sources for the democratic institutions of dmical Athens. (c) The fourth century is by far the best attested period in our sources. We have many more inscriptions,especially decrees of the people, and they are much more valuable sources for the ecclesia than the fifth-century inscriptions, because the preambles of the decrees become more and more detailed. We have some symbouleutic speeches, mostly by Demosthenes,which are probably genuine documents, surpassing V

PREFACE the artificial reports of symbouleutic speeches given by Thucydides. Furthermore the ecclesia is described and debated at great length in many forensic speeches and some of the (probably genuine) documents inserted in several forensic speeches are first rate sources for the ecclesia.There are some precious chapters in the second,-systematic, part of Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. And we have accounts of ecclesiaiand of decrees in Xenophon's Hellenica III-VII and in the fragments of the Atthidographers. Finally the comedy by Aristophanes that tells us most about the people's auembly is the Ecclesiazusaeof 393·92, and some of the Charactersby Theophrastus (composed in 319?) bring interesting bits of information on the ecclesia. (d) For the Hellenistic period we have mostly epigraphical sources, and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to describe the working of the ecclesiaon the basis of inscriptions alone. The only literary source of any importance is Lucian, but he is difficult to interpret because he tends to project a description of contemporary institutions back into the classical period. In conclusion, a description of the Athenian ecclesiamust, in my opinion, begin--with a systematic account of the ecclesiain the fourth cen• tury, followed by a historical account of the development of the institution from the sixth century to the end of the hellenistic period. 2. The pouibility of reconstructing the working of the ecclesiahas been immensely improved by the Greek•American excavations of the Pnyx in 1930-37. Especially for the fourth century (Pnyx II and III) many new conclusions can be based on a combination of the physical remains of the assembly place with the literary and epigraphical sources. 3. I do not share the common belief that the democracy of 403-322 was identical with the so-called radical democracy of 462-11 and 410-04. On the contrary I hold (a) that the democracy restored in 403/2 in many important respects was different from the fifth-cen tlny democracy and (b) that the democracy, in the period 403-322, underwent many more changes and refonns than usually assumed. Especially the defeat in the social war, in 355, and the defeat in the war against Philip, in 338, seem to have entailed farreaching refonns of the democratic institutions in general and of the ecclesia in particular. Consequently, I cannot follow historians who project fourthcentury sources back into the fifth century and use them as sources for the working of the ecclesiain the age of Pericles. 4wAs all other historians I sometimes have to rely on analogies and a priori assumptions. But I tend to avoid analogies with representative government in· modem democracies and prefer analogies with the Swiss Landsgemeinde which is an exceptional but outstanding example of direct democracy, prac• tised in small face-to-face societies. It remains for me to state my acknowledgements. First I would like to thank Johnny Christensen for his unfailing interest and many comments on

.

VI

PREFACE all my articles. Next I have a debt of gratitude to all the scholars who by letter or in conversation have commented on my studies of the Athenian ecclesia.They are, in alphabetical order: Ernst Badian, Alan Boegehold, Lars Bzrentzen, William Calder III, George Cawkwell, John Crook, Philippe Gauthier, Guy Griffith, Christian Habicht, Signe lsager, John Kroll, David Lewis, Detlef Lotze, Douglas MacDowell, Fordyce Mitchel, Claude Mosse, Michael Osborne, Martin Ostwald, Peter Rhodes, Wolfgang Schuller, Raphael Sealey, Jens Erik Skydsgaard, Geoffrey de Ste Croix, Ronald Stroud, Homer Thompson, David Whitehead and Geoffrey Woodhead. Finally I am much indebted to the editors of GRBS, William Willis and Kent Rigsby, for their support, their speed and their accuracy in editing my articles. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees of GRBS for many helpful comments on my typescripts.

September 1983 University of Copenhagen .

..

VII

CONTENTS

1.. How Many Athenians Attended theEcclesia? GRBS 17 (1976) 115-34

Text

Addenda

1-20

21-23

2. The AthenianEcclesia and the AssemblyPlace on the Pnyx. 25-33 GRBS 23 (1982) 241-49

34

3. How Often Did the EcclesiaMeet? GRBS 18 ( 1977) 43-70

35-62

63-72

4. 'EKKMlO'ia ,;uy"~'lTOC in HellenisticAthens.. GRBS 20 ( 1979) 149-56

73-80

81

5. When Did the Athenian Eccle&iaMeet? GRBS 23 (1982) 331-50

83-102

102

6. How Did the Athenian EcclesiaVote? GRBS 18 (1977) 123-37

103-17

118-21

7. The Procheirotoniain the Athenian Ecclelia.

123·30

8 .. The Duration of a Meetingof the Athenian Ecclesia. CP 74 (1979) 43-49

131-37

138

9.. Demos,Ecclesiaand Dicasterionin ClassicalAthens GRBS 19 (1978) 127-46

139-58

159-60

10. Nomos andPsephismain Fourth.Century Athens GRBS 19 (1978) 315-30

161-76

177

11. Did the AthenianEcclesia Legislateafter 403/2? GRBS 20 ( 1979) 27-53

179-205

206

12. The Athenian Ecclesiaand the SwissLandsgemeinde.

207•26

Conclusion

227-29

General index

230-33

Index of sources

234-45

The articles 1-6 and 8-11 are reprinted unchanged apart from the asterisks in the margin which refer to the addenda at the end of each article. The articles 7 and 12 are here presented for the first time. All cross-referencesare to the numbers printed at the bottom of the page.

•

IX

How Many Athenians Attended the Ecclesia? democracy1 the author opens his account by distinguishing between direct and representative democracy..• Even in systematic treatments of the subject this problem is invariably dealt with in a historical context. Everyone acknowledges that direct democracy does not exist any longer, in any case not as a form of government,• and this indisputable fact is usually followed by

I

N MOST MODBRN BOOK.Son

a statement, not quite as convincing, to the effect that direct democ-

racy nowadays is impossible because of the size of modem states.• References in this anide, hereafter dted by author"s name and page number, are to: G. BusoLT and H. SwoaooA, GritdaisclstS't44tsh.ndl1-Il (Milnchcn 1920-26). P. CLoCld., La dhnocratieadlbuen.u (Paris 1951). W. Onmlooalt ttview of Haptrul 1 in AJA 37 (1933) 180-82.. M. L Fnnn. DffllocracyAndtnt and Modmt. (London 1973). G. GLOTZ1 L4 dU grque (Paris TM Sowrdgnty of dtt, Ptopl1lsCown iff Arllffls in w FourthCentvry a.c. 1928). M. H. HANIBN. ad ~ hblk Action agaitt.stUnconstihd1onalPropoS4ls(Odense 1974), and Bisangelia,Tkt Sovmignty of tat Pt0ple•sCovrt in Atlatns in die Fourtlt Ctntury a.c. and dtt Impeaclamentof Gffleral.sand Politician.s(Odensc 1'71S).B. HoLDBN,Tit Natvre of Democracy(London 197-4). A. H. M. JOMBS, AdtmuznDffll«Tacy(Oxford 1960). K. KouaotJNJOTBS and H. A. THOIIPSON • ...The Pnp: in Athens, ... Haptrul 1 (1932) 90-217. J. A. O. Lus&N, Reprutnt4tiw ~ in Gm and ROffldnHistory (Berkeley and Los Angeles 19.SS).J. LlvBLT,Dtmocraty (Oxford 1975). B. Mana. Bin.flahnn1gin die Staatsbnde (Darmstadt 1968). W. A. McDoNW>, TIie Politiw Mtaing Placa of tlat:Grtth {Baltimore 1943). P. J. RHooas. Tht Adamian Boule (Oxford 1972.).G. Silrom, ••ncmocracy,.in Encyclopawaoftlu!SodalSdtnca. B. s. STAnLBY. Gmk and RONft Voting and Bltaions (London 1912).H. A. THOMPSON and R. L. SCRANTON, ..Stoas and City Walls on che Pnyx/" Huptri4 7 (1943) 269-301. H. A. THOMPSON and R. E. WrCltDLIT, 7lle AdrtttianAgora XIV: Tltt Agora of Adlms (Princeton 1972). J. TltAVLOI, PiaorilJlDiaionaryof Andfflt Adns (New York 1971). R. G. USSlll!ll,Arisropluina, Bcdesia(Wae (Onord 1973). R. B. WTCHBRLBY • TireAdatniaitAiora III: Utaary and Bpigrapldc4l Tulimonia (Princeton 19S7). 1 Cf. Holden 26-34, Uvely 2.9fl',Sanori us. 1 Direct democracy is of growing imponance in the form of "industrial democracy• (Holden 20, Sartori 114). But in this case the basic unit is not a whole state but small economic communities which arc face-to-face societies. • Holden 27. Sartori us. Lively30. Holden, however, is right in pointing out (p.28) that modem. technology has made a return to direct democracy pos.,iblc (but perhaps not desirable): "'There could, for example, be a system in which television viewers, after watching some sort of debate or presentation of policy proposals. voted directly on the issues by means of bunons attached to their seu. 1

anti•

H

1

116

HOW MANY ATHENIANS A'ITENDED THE ECCLES/A?

The historical view. however, varies according to the author's nationality ..Following Montesquieu some German and Scandinavian scholars concentrate on •rne germanische Urdemokratie"..1 The French have since Rousseau had a propensity for giving an account of the Swiss cantons,• whereas Anglo-Saxonwriters almost invariablygive prominence to the Greek city-states and especiallyto the Athenian democracy of the classicalperiod.7 I find it wisest to follow the AngloSaxon scholars. «Diegermanische Urdemokratie' is a romantic fiction without any foundation in reliable sources.• The Swiss cantons are constituent states without autonomy,• and so we are left with the Athenian democracy of the fifth and founh centuries as the only imponant example of a direa democracy of which we have any knowledge.. We can exclude the fourth possible historical parallel, vit. the Italian cities in the Renaissance..Admittedly, Florence, Venice and Milan were dty•states and in many respects comparable to the Greek -poleis;but the form of government was either monarchic or oligarchic, and accordingly no parallel can be established when dealing with democracy.10 The body of government constituting a direct democracy is the people•s assembly. In Athens all adult male citizens were admitted to the ecclesia,and every citizen was entitled to address the assembly and make proposals. A decree passed by the assembly was-in theory-a decision made by all Athenians,11 but in reality only a pan-perhaps only a small pan-of the citizens attended the meetings. Thus, any evaluation of Athenian democracy as a direct democracy presupposes a discussionof the crucial problem: how many citizens were present when the decisionswere made in the assembly? As usual the scanty sources do not allow us to answer this question satisfactorily, and as usual the sources divide themselves into two groups which cannot form the basis of one comprehensive conclusion. Two literary sources give us some information about the Athenian Montesquleu,De raprit du lols ll.6 ad.finem. • e.g. A. Siegfried, La Suisse,~atit-tbnoin (Ncucbltel 1948), eh. 5 § z. ' Holden 19. Lively 29, 32, Sanori us. 1 The prindpal source. mentioned by Montesquieu and frequently discussed by later 1

scholars,is Tadtl.lS,Genndni4 11. • Holden 29.. 11 CJ: J..Plamenatz, Manand Soddy I (London 1963) 9-11. 11 Xen. HdL 1.7.9: ~ *.AB,palouc ci,,fll'TUCICtffli~.

·~.u.u.

2

Dern. 24.48: a ricu,

HOW MANY ATHENIANS ATfEND~D Tiffi ECCLES/A?

117

assembly during the Peloponnesian War, whereas a group of laws (quoted in the forensic speeches) and decrees (preserved on stone) concern fourth•century conditions..The written sources, however, can be supplemented by archaeological evidence covering the whole classicalperiod. The meeting place of the assembly on the Pnyx has been excavated in 1930-31 and described in several important articles in Hesperia..11 The size of the auditorium can be determined with some acruracy for all periods, and through the reconstructions published by the archaeologists we are in a position to form a conclusion as to the maximum number of citizens attending the meetings of the assembly.. Accordingly,the question: ''How many citizens attended the ecclesia ?" is linked with another important question: HWhere did the Athenians hold the meetings of the assembly?"

I. Where Did the AssemblyMeet? It is the generally accepted view that the Athenian people used to meet on the Pnyx,11 with the important exception that 'plenary assemblies' were held in the Agora.14 Funhermore, the people convened in the Theatre of Dionysus immediately after the Greater Dionysia,in Hdlenistic times on other occasionsas well ;11 and when naval matters were on the agenda the assembly might be convoked to the Piraeus. 11 The weak point in this statement is the assemblies in the Agora, about which our sources are silent..The assemblies in the Theatre of Dionysus are mentioned both in epigraphical11 and in literary sources,18 and in classicaltimes, as far as we know, the Athenians held assembly in the precinct of Dionysus only once a year, viz.after the Greater Dionysia when a debate on the feast was one of the items of agenda.11 Similarly, the assemblies in the Piraeus are referred to both See supran.1. Busolt 990, Glotz 180, Meyer90, Stavcley 80, McDonald 44, 67-80. H-Busolt 990, Stavcley 79, McDonald 44-45, Kourouniotcs and Thompson 104. 11 Busolt 991 Meyer 90, Stavclcy 79. McDonald 47-SI. 1 1• Busolt 991,.Meyer 90, Staveley 79, McDonald .S'l-56. 11 A table -...,f the epigraphical evidence can be found in McDonald -48. Cf. Sir Arthur Pickard.catnbridge, ne Dratuti&Festivalsof Athens•,rev. J.Gould and D. M. Lewis (Oxford 11 11

1968) 68ft".

Dern. 21.9. Aescbin-2.61. IG llf1Il1 223 a 6 (Blaphebolion 343/2). lG D/m 1 34S (19 Elaphebolion 332/1). ffupma 8 (1939) 26 no.6 (19 Blaphcbolion 332/1). (In addition to the latter two'.t the decrees IG II/Dl1 346 and 347 were passed on 19 Blaphebolion 332/1, but in these two decrees the meeting H 11

3

118

HOW MANY ATHENIANS AITENDED THE ECCLES/A?

in decrees and in the forensic speeches. Admittedly, the preserved inscriptions are all of the Hellenistic period, 10 but two passages in Demosthenes• speech On the Embassycorroborate that the Athenians in the fourth century convened in the Piraeus, and probably only when the principal bwiness was to discuss naval matters~ 11 Pnyx and Agora, on the other handt are not once mentioned in the inscriptions as the meeting place of the assembly. As regards the Pnyx, however, the numerous references in the literary sources are sufficient proof that it was the regular meeting place of the Athenian people.11 Otherwise with the Agora =we have not a single reliable source in support of the assumption that the assembly in classical times met in the market place .. The evidence usually cited may be subsumed under four headings: 1. Two accounts in Plutarch 's LifeofSolonindicate that the Athenians

in the Archaic period convened in the Agora: Solon recited his poem on Salamis for the Athenians in the Agora (Sol. 8 ..2), and Peisistratus came into the Agora showing the Athenians his self-inflicted wounds and asking for a bodyguard (30 ..1). 23 that the 2. Harpocration relates in his note on 1r&v871µ.oc, Atf,po8lr1J goddess' sanctuary in the Agora gained this epithet because the Athenians in former times held their assemblies in this part of the market place. 3.. In 403, after the defeat at Mounichia, the Athenians 'from the city' assembled in the Agora, deposed 'the Thirty' and appointed 'the Ten' in their place. 14 1 348 (19 Elaphebolion 331/0). The only unquestionable place is left unmcntioncd). IG 11/111 example of a meeting of the assembly being held in the Theatre of Dionysus on another occasion than after the Greater Dionysia is IG II/lll 1 350 (cf Hespma 8 [1939] 33). a decree passed by the people in the Theatre of Dionysus probably in Anthcstcrion 318/7. (On Thuc. 8.93-94 cf. n.27). •• A table of the epigraphical evidence can be found in McDonald 52. 11 Dem. 19.60 7"ffTffpG8'~lvovroc ,j1e1eA71c,&(fT't' µ& -r1,r vµdc b llnpaui ttrp2 T.118vwv does not occur in any other source. (2) I hope to sho,v in this pa per that 6,000 was a normal attendance, at least in the fourth can no longer be taken to mean an century. Thus, 8fjµ.oc11>...,,Bvwv assembly where at least 6,000 citizens were present, and the concept .rplenaryassembly' must accordinglybe abandoned. The only tenable distinction is that between f.KK'A7JClcu Kvp,a,and other ordinary assemblies.. As mentioned above, the written sourcesmwt be divided into two groups: (1) two literary sources deal with the fifth-century democracy; (2) some laws and decrees prescribing ·a quorum of 6,(N)()concern the democracy after the restoration in 403/2~These two source• groups must be kept apart since we are not allowed to extrapolate the founh-cenrury laws and postulate that the quorum of 6,000 was binding on the assembly in the fifth century. Admittedly, the quorum of 6,000 was applied to ostracism, but ostTakophariawas not a vote taken in the assembly, and an argument from analogy is inadmissible without further proof, since we know positively that one of the laws requiring an attendance of 6,000 citizens at the meeting of the assembly was not introduced until ea 370 s.c., vi,t. the provisions for ratification of citizenship decrees. Similarly, another of the laws in question presupposes the formal distinction between laws (vo1u") and decrees "ThompsonandWycherleyJI, Glotz 198. " Larsen 16. Hansen~ Sownig,uy20; Eisangdill S2 paa Rhodes 197-98.

8

HOW MANY ATIIENIANSATI"ENDED 1HE ECCLES/A?

123

(.fn,,/,lcp.a.~a ), which was not introduced until after the restoration of the democracy in 403/2.

III. The Fifth Century: Literary Evidence Thucydides 8.72 is the only source which gives us any direct informa .. tion about the number of citizens attending the meetings of the assembly ..The text runs: llEJJ;ff'Ovc, 8~ Kal EC~v Eaµov 8/Ka &vapac • .A' ' ' ~' ~-~2~ fff%f"Zp,~,,coµ.oovc TO CTp 'I: ... , BCU •AA... OJI " cw " µ,,, .J. o, ~ t avo,-,u,-yu.v,av -"-·~ --~JJ, , KE&p,EVOC ,.,.,,, E~E,vcu ,ro,'1}Ct%C v,,vuuw, 8TJJJ,ql 1 t ' ~ ' "AR' .z1:. :t. '\ ' " • EffE, ' 8aJI ' E,c TOV ..,,,p.ov 'TOV v,1VUWJV u.s«>V :, ,YfVe-C8 citizens constitute a quorum and not a

~EVOVC ElC&Evm. ICCU 1"U )'Epp«

,

...

avc:upEW,

•

,

..

ll'CI ICVp«K WV

majority voting for the proposal In this case, however, an argument from analogy must be allowed, and the conclusion is that all three laws prescribe a quorum of 6,000. It is remarkable that the decisionsrequiring a quorum are always made by ballot'• and not; aswas usual in the assembly, by show of hands. The explanation is probably that a ballot was the only way by which it could be ascertained whether 6,000 citizens were present. Leaving aside the difficulties raised by counting 6,000 hands with precision, we must admit that only a ballot could guarantee that nobody voted twice or abstained from voting. Let us suppose that only 5,000 turned up. If 4,000voted for a proposal but suspected that the attendance was not sufficientto constitute the required quorum, a pan of them, for example 1,000, could have voted against the proposal too if the vote was taken by show of hands. In this case the decree would seemingly have been passed with 4,000 votes against 2,000. Reversely,a minority could have blocked a proposal if they abstained from voting, in which case the decree would have been passed with an overwhelming majority but not by the required quorum. Such devices"~ereprecluded when the people voted by ballot sincewe may assume by analogy with the voting procedure practised in the couns that no citizen had any possibilityof using both his ~' and that no dtizen could obtain his per diem unless he actually cast his vote {Arist. Atl1.Pol.68). To abstain from voting would mean to fotfeit the drachma obtained for attending the assembly. Funhermore, voting by ballot is in my opinion an indication that the number 6,000 was taken seriously. Scepticalhistorians may perhaps object that '6,000 votes' only means 'many votes' and that the Athenians did not care whether actually 6,000 votes or 5,000 were cast. This scepticism can be ruled out when the vote was taken by ballot. The ~, must have been counted with precision, and the sources testify to the Athenians' respect for procedure and formalities. The complicated procedure for appointing the jurors is a well•known u 11te text of all

tJ,irlto,, W.-

threelaws gives «,n1/l1,rp, t/nrfJC~clta, whichis explainedby the phrase

found in 0cm. 59.89 and iD the drizcnship decrees. Sec infra n.JS.

12

·HOW MANY ATHENIANS A1TENDED 1HE ECCLESIA?

127

example,' 7 and if the Athenians could carry on a lawsuit for one whole day because a debt to the state amounting to seven minae was three days overdue (Dern. 19.293), I do not doubt that 6,000 votes mean 6,000 votes. Occasionally a decision may have been ratified by for example S,990 votes, but then a grapheparanomonwas probably brought by one of the politicians opposing the decree and he would presumably have argued in the speech delivered before the jurors that democracy could not be upheld unless the decrees were passed according to the strict letter of the law. In his paraphrase of the law on citizenship decrees Apollodorus

supplies us with the important information that the vote requiring the quorum was taken at the beginning of the meeting. It would no doubt have been too complicated in the middle of a meeting to let the whole people pass by the voting urns and back again to their seats. A debate was unnecessary since the decree had already been discussed at the previous ecclesia. It needed only its ratification, and the most reasonable procedure must have been to place the voting urns near the entrance and take the vote before the beginning of the actual meeting. No matter how the voting was organized we may infer from Apollodorus' information that only one decree could be ratified during one meeting of the assembly. From the three laws prescribing a quorum most historians have concluded that occasionally more than 6,000 citizens must have and that the decisionsrequiring the quorum must attended the ecclesia have been gathered together and passed in the infrequent 'plenary assemblies This statement is open to at least three serious objections: (1) The way the vote was taken precludes the possibility of gathering together the proposals requiring a quorum of 6,000. (2) The preserved inscriptions show that the ratification of a citizenship decree could be undertaken at any meeting of the assembly. (3) Accordingly, the notion 'plenary assemblies' is pure fantasy without any foundation in the sources. Both the granting of adeia'8 and the passing of a voµ.ocJ:1r'a."8pl'' 11 •

" Cf. Amt. Ada.Pol.63ff.

•• The asscmbJfs grantingof adtia is referredto in Patrokleides•amnesty decree, And. 1.77 .

.. We have three examples of privilegesto named persons passed by the assemblyin the form of decrees, but referred to the IIOfflOdatrai for ratification (IG D/IIP 222 1◄1ff; JG 1 1 D/JD. 330,18ft';Syll. 298,37ft). In these casesthe decisionmade by the ft0ffll40tlati must be a

13

128

HOW MANY ATHENIANS ATTENDED THE ECCLES/A?

may have been a rare occurrence, but we know positively that the Athenians frequently passed citizenship decrees.. The first known instance of a double vote as described in the speech AgainstNeaerais a decree passed in 368 B.c. and bestowing citizen rights on Dionysius I of Syracuse.1 • From this year until the abolition of democracy in 322 we know of some sixty persons who obtained citizen rights by decree. Seventeen decrees are preserved on stone, 11 and in addition the literary sources provide us with forty-seven names.11 As usual our sources are scanty, and we may safely assume that more than one hundred and probably several hundred foreigners were made citizens by decree ~ b,'

*

hapl. and accordingly the decree prescribing the ratification before the nomodaet4imust have been passed by a quorum of 6.000 dtizcns. 11 IG ll/Jil.1 103. The double vote is not referred to in the citizenship decrees Crom the 1 1. 101'19, 2S). period before 368 (IG JI/D1 11 IG llfDl 1 103 (369/8) Oionysius I (PA 4169), cf. SBG XVI 46. IG Dfm.1 109 ('J63/2) Astycn.tes (PA 2654), cf. SBG XVI 47. Huperia 13 (1944) 2.19 no.3 (3S7/6) Aristomenes (not in PA). JG D/1Il1 18S (ante a. 3S3/2) ? . lG D/Ill 1 207 (349/8) Orontes (PA 11490). cf. SEGXV 92, XXI 261; Bengtson no.324. IG D/DI1 222 (344/3) Pisithides (not in PA). IG D/ID 1 237 (338/7) Phormio 1 ZJl (ate a.. (PA 14961) and Carphina (PA 8261)~cf. SBG XVD 24. XXI 266. XXIV 9S. IG D/1Il 336/S) ? • IG II/ID 1 282. (41Uta. 3M,/S) ? • IG D/DI1 297 (ante a...33'6/S) ? • IG DfID• 301 (allk a. 336/S) ? • IG D/IJI' 336 (334/3) Archippus (PA 2564), cf. SEG XV 97~XXI 273. lG D/Jll1 369 1 438 (posta. (323/2) ?? of Bospon11,cf. SEG XXI 298, XXIV 101. IG D/Ill 1 40S (33S/1.9)? . IG D/m 3'36/J) ? • IG 11/101 448 (323/2) Euphron (PA 6126), cf. SBGXXI 297, XXllI J9. Haperid 13 (1944) 232 no.J (ante 321/0)? of Plataea. Funhermore, if. JG D/Dl1 511 (Jin. s. IV) and S78 (s. IV). 11 Againu (PA 108) Dcm. 23.202. Aluis (PA 549) Suda s.v. Alcintaduu (PA 626) Harp. s.v. Aldmacl11u(not in PA) JG D/Ill'391. Antphis (PA 78S) Sud4 s.v.• cf. lG D/ID1 347. AJttipatnu (PA 1180) Harp. s.v.Just.Epit. 9.4.S. AntiplMws (PA 1219) s.v. Apolkmidu (PA 1504) Dem. 59.91. Apollonius (not in PA) Dern. 20.30. Arlobar(ana (PA 1621) Dem. Zl.141, 202. Aristo-

Sw

denn,s (not in PA) schol. Aeschin. Z.IS: Dem. 19 hyp. 2.2. Arybbas (not in PA) IG D/m 1 226. Bi4nor'(PA 28.SO)Dern. 23.12. Bryuis (PA 2930) Clem.Al. PTotr.4.48. Callias(PA7898) Hyp. 1.20; Aeschin. 3.85. Ctrsoblqta (nor in PA) Dem. 12.8, 2.3.203.Cladaq,ltilus(PA l.SI8n Din. 1.43. CharidtmMS(PA 15380) Dern. 23.6J. Clt4rdnu (PA 8485) Dern. 20.84. Ccmon(PA 8700) Din. 1.43., l)iogtnts (not in PA) IG D/ID 1 3474. Epigaru (PA 4782) Din. 1.43. Ewdaas (not in PA) 0cm. 23.203. Evtlaycratt.s (not In PA) Hyp. fr.80-91 (Baiter and Sauppe). Harpahu (PA 2251) Ath. J86D, 59611.Heradida (PA 6488) Dern. 23.119. l.tNcon (not in PA) Dem. 20.30. LycopkTDII (not in PA) Arist. Rlttt. 1410a18. Mt-nela1t1(PA 9961) Syll.1 188. Ntoptolmws (PA 1064n schol. 0cm. 5.6. Pot:rfsodu(not in PA) Dem. 20.29, cf. IG Il/Ill 1 2.12.Pamphilus(PA IIJSS) Din. 1.43. Pluiyllw.s (not in PA) Dem. 23.124. Ph.eulippus (PA 14163) Din. 1.43. Plrddft (PA 14184) Din. 1.4.J. Philip of Macedon(not in PA) Plut. Dan. ll.4. Plwi.sclu(PA 14430) Dem. 23.141. 202. Plumnio (PA 149Sl) Dcm. 46.13. Pltrasimda (PA 14976} Dern. 23.101. PitltoLzas (PA 11762) Dcm. S9.91. Polystltmu (not in PA) Dem. 23.ZOZ.Python (PA 12479) 0cm. 23.119. Simon (PA 12709) Dem. 23.12. Spart«M$(not in PA) Dem. 20.29, cf. IG II/DI' 212. Sdamnis (PA 12641) Sada s.v. Kdp,ooc. T,n,rosdlents(PA 1343S) Din. 1.44. Aeschin. 3.8S. Tues (not in PA) Dem. 12.8. CJ. A. Billheimer, Nan,rali{ation in Adrmian lAw ond Praaice (Gettysburg 1917) 110-28: List 0£Naturalized Athenians.

14

HOW MANY ATHENIANS ATIENDED nIE ECCLES/A?

129

during this period of less than fifty years.Consequently 6,000 citizens must have attended the meetings of the assembly on several occasions every year. As I have argued above the notion •plenary assemblies' is based on the assumption that 6,000 was a rare attendance figure, but even rejecting the plenary assemblies as pure fantasy we are still faced with the possibility that the proposals requiring a quorum of 6,000 were reserved for the ten principal assemblies (t1.:qcla. cvy1e;\71Tocpoints to the conclusion that it certainly denotes a meeting of the assembly summoned in a special way, but not a meeting held in addition to the four meetings summoned every prycany.

The Number of Ecclesiaiheld in a Prytany The two passages in Aeschines and Demosthenes cerned with the controversy runs as follows:

are both con-

over the Peace of Philocrates. The text

"" t '\ , " t , t ..r , C ya.p DEM. 19. 154 . EffEtv,I EKICl1TJCtct J,LEJI OVICET '/II V1TOIW,1rOC OVOEJJ.&a. oia · ' - 9en, ov-ro, .,. oi:-, ov,c " ' ... _,_\ \ t " ... 6 , R -~L .• TO 1rpo1ea-r«KEXP"JC Cffl!ICUV, WV\ «V1"0V &ETp,f-lov, y,,....,,...,, f

R \ ,...,,..,,,cµa .,. , ,,I..

I

I Q 1rpECt1E&C

,-,OVI\EV.:qcla, (see p. 49), 1nost scholars assume that tKK>.:r,cla ov8Eµ.lameans no ordinary assc111hl~· (Weil I 304); but this interpretation cannot. in my opinion,. hl~ uphl·ld. for the following reasons. (a) Demosthenes says explicitly t h~u nt tt ,1 single ecclesiawas left, and his emphatic expression must c:0111pri,l· both regular and extraordinary meetings. (b) This inrcrprc1 .u i, ,n is confirmed by Demosthenes' additional information thac thl· people in this awkward situation had bestowed special powers on the Council of Five Hundred.' Why should the people resign some of their powers if an extraordinary assembly could be summoned at any n1oment? The EisangtliaSl-S7 I discussed Den,. 19.IS4 in relation to Acschin. 2.72. The interpretation of Dern. 19.1 S4 offered in this article is basically the same. but since in 1975 I still belie-ved in the traditional definition of '""')..'lcl«cuy,cA,,-oc~ my inrerpretarion of Acschin. 2.72 was inadequate. In this srudy I a1nplifyand itnprove what I wrote about .'\eschin. 2.72 in Eisangelia54-JS and S7. • For special powers bestowed on the Council by the «desia cf. IG 111 127.34-lJ; 204.85-86; 435.7-9; l62.9.26·1 69; SEG XIV47 a 3; and Rhodes82. :aIn

36

HOW OFTEN DID nfE ECCLES/A MEET?

4S

most reasonable explanation is that only a fixed number of assemblies could be held every prytany and that the people in the spring of 347/6 had exhausted the number prescribed by law. Demosthenes carried his decree of the Council referred to in 19.154 on the third of Mounichion (Aeschin. 2.92). His information is confirmed by Aeschines (2.61 ), who, ref erring to the preceding period, maintains that Demosthenes (in the eccltsiaheld on Elaph. 8) arranged two meetings of the assembly on the 18th and 19th of Elaphebolion in order to ·snatch away in advance' (1rpoii.f,a,pwv)che meetings of the assembly before the envoys from the other Hellenic cities had arrived in Athens .. It is a much debated problem whether or not embassies from the other Greek cities were expected in Athens at this moment, but this is of no consequence for our argument. The important point is the tactics of which Demosthenes has allegedly availed himself. How could Demosthenes 1rpoiitf>a'J'E'iv Tac J1t1t>..7JC-lac? Only if a fixed number of assemblies were held every prytany, since the Athenians were now forced to discuss the peace during the meetings held on Elaph. 18 and 19 and take the vote on the peace. This interpretation squares with Demosthenes' information that the Athenians later in the prytany had in fact exhausted the number of ecclesiai at their disposal. We must turn to the only source which mentions explicitly how often the ecclesiamet, \.it. Arist. Ath.Pol. 43.3: ol 8J:1rpvrav£vovT£c ••• , cvvayovc,v

\ \ Q IC(U ,..,,.,

\\ \ ,-,OVl\7JV K(U

\

' .1" " \\ • ' , µEv ouv 110Vl\7IV oca, TJµEpa,, ffA~v l&v T,c t¥'c,µ.rx: iJ,'TOV 8, 8ijµ.ovTETp«,c,c'T'qe 11pvTavElacEICUCTTJC. All scholars hold that Aristotle is referring to ordinary meetings of the t,...

\

'TOV 071µ.ov· .,.,,,.,

assembly, but this interpretation is not warranted by the text. Extra• ordinary meetings are passed over in silence by Aristotle both in this passage and in 62.2, where he informs us of the per diem paid out to those who attended an ecclesia;the rate is I½dr. for an J1e,c>..71cla Kvpla and one dr. for an fKK~:qcla. If the Constitutiono_(Athens is isolated from other sources, the inference must be that the Athenians during a year held forty meetings of the assembly, no more and no less .. This inference is confirmed by Dern. 19.154 and Aeschin. 2.61, whereas the accepted view-that the Athenians summoned extraordinary meetings when required in addition to the forty ordinary meetings-is based on a combination of Aristotle's information with information derived from sources referring to fKK'A'TJclr.n cvy,c,\7170,. The clue to the problem is therefore the meaning of the term EKK>-:,,cla cJyKATJToc. 37

HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLES/A MEET?

46

What is an f l(ICA7Jcla CV)',cAwoc? •E1e1eA71cla coy1tA']TOCis usually translated by 'extraordinary meeting of the assembly' and is taken to denote an urgent meeting summoned ' at short notice in addition to the ordinary meetings. This interpretation is only to a certain degree supported by our sources, which are of three types. Most important are two passages in the forensic speeches of the fourth century; next comes the epigraphical evidence represented by some decrees of the Hellenistic period; and finally a dozen notes on the term cvy""-'1TocE1..TJ, UQ

,

c,a~EU-' p,ETa y,u,..,ov ,ea,

8opvfJov IQ "' , , , ... 1J1"UCTE-rayµEvacEK TWV

,

VOJU.l)V.

J

19.122-23. ;.,., yap 'TWJI wpcryµ&-rwvovrwv P,ETEWfH»V ,cal rov '\ \ ~'-~ I\ I\\ ' \ I - (' -·\ ' JJ,EIV\OV'f'OC ao7111ov,cv""oyo, 1ta, 110,,0, 1T.:qcla. differed from an J,c,c),:qcla. J,c Twv voµ,wv. In this respect Demosthenes is more informative. He describes the conflict over the appointment of the third embassy sent to Philip in 346. Demosthenes was elected by the people together with most of the other envoys who had served on the first and second embassies, but he declined to serve for a third time and lodged an Jfwµ.ocla. Demosthenes· course of action took the other envoys by surprise, and they feared that he, after their departure, would arrange an J,c,c'}..TJcla cuyKA"JTOC and turn the scales. In Dern. 19.123 the adverb lfaltf>VTJc is sufficient proof that an J,c,c)\:11cla cuy1.:,,cla, cvyK'A.71To,, but Demosthenes' silence on this point is not surprising. He wishes to emphasize the laborious and slow democratic procedure in opposition to the efficiency of an oligarchy or a tyranny. Accordingly; he concentrates on the ordinary procedure prescribed by the law and the possibility of summoning an urgent n1eeting is cunningly passed over in silence. No contemporary source mentions the extent of the period prescribed by law for the summoning of an ecclesiaat proper notice. but we can presumably trust Photius, who in a note on the word 1rpo• -rrEµ..rr-ra.states chat the prytaneiswere requested to publish the agenda for the ecclesiaat four days• notice: 1rpo1r£µ.1rTa·TO1rpo wlvTE ~µ,EpC,11 110µt,JJ1 1ea871,qJ. In

...

,

\

,

,~

•

"

f

,

\

,

,

,

•

'

f

,

...

'f'1'/C f:ICKl\'1C'CU: 11poj'p«~E,V o-r, ECT'U&TJEKKllfJCIU E, 'TVXOl, 1.VClKai. Ot EV 'T"OK &ypoic cvvlA8wc, ... (cf. Lex.Stg. 296.8; Arist. Ath.Pol.44.2; Dern. 25.9).

In the decrees preserved on stone the term J,c,c_'A.TJCl« cvy1e'A.71Toc docs

not occur until the third century e.c. This observation, however, cannot form the basis of any argument from silence, since the. pre• ambles of the decrees passed before 336 do not include any informa• tion about the type of assembly, and since only a few examples of the terms E1t1t'A7JCl« (JG111 330, 331, 335, 354, 358, 375, 405, 408, 436), J,c,c,\.,,. cla lv JJ",ovvcov (JG 111 345, 348, 350; Hesperia8 (1939] 26-27 no. 6) and E1tK">..']Cl« ,cvpl« (JG111 336t 340, 344, 352, 356, 359, 362, 363, 367, 368, 448) can be found in the decrees of the period 336-322. In some of these decrees the terms are in fact restored. Now, in a few decrees of the third and second century it is stated that the decision was made at an l1-.-,,cla. coy,c,\17Toc.Conversely, a variant of the probouleumatic formula indicates that the phrase oTa.v al .;,µ.Epa,al '" Twv v&µ.w11 lf~,c(l)C&V (cf Dern. 19..185 and Aeschin. 2.72) forms a counterpart of

le

)

4 The Athenian Ea:lcsia

39

*

HOW OFTEN DID 1HE ECCLES/A MEET?

48

*

the term tKK'ATJCl« cvyK'A17-roc. In these decrees tK1e'A11cla cvy,c'A.,,.,.oc is described not as an urgent meeting but as a meeting summoned by decree either of the Council (Hespma 7 [1938] 476-79 no. 31; IG 111 897, 954, cf 911) or of the assembly (IG 111 838,. 945, cf 554) as against the meetings warranted by law (IG 111 652, 667, 682). The problem is whether the information derived from the Hellenistic sources can be extrapolated and applied to the democratic constitution of the fourth century. By a combination of several sources this problem can be answered in the affirmative. We know from Aeschin. 2.72 that the Athenians during a crisis had summoned more EKK'A:qcla., cvy,c"11To, than l1etc>..'Jcla, TETayp,E11a,EK-rwv 110µ.wv.It can be demonstrated (see p.S3) that Aeschines' statement refers to the spring of 346, when the peace with Philip was discussed and passed by the people. Through the detailed accounts of this period in Aeschines' and Demosthenes' speeches On the Embassyand On the Crown we have information about most-or probably all-of the ecclesiaisummoned during this period. It is significant that neither Aeschines nor Demosthenes mentions any urgent meeting, where as they both describe several meetings sum• moned by decree, Vi(. the meetings held on Elaph .. 8, 18 and 19 (see p.55). le must be these ecclesiaithat Aeschines has in mind when he c6y1tA71To,.But these meetings of the refers to the numerous E1tKA7Jcla, assembly were not urgent meetings. The sessions on Elaph. 18 and 19, for example, were summoned at ten days· notice (see p.55). The cvyKA-1JTOC n1ust therefore be moditraditional definition of l1eK>..TJCl« fied or rather extended so as to cover not only meetings summoned at short notice but also meetings warranted· by a decree. The second part of the traditional definition is that the term JK1tA71cla cvy,c~TJTOC denotes a meeting summoned in addition to the ordinary meetings. The only evidence which can be produced in support of this view derives from the lexica and scholiat e.g. the ' ' yap ' O'T& • K«Ta' JJ,T/Va ... Tpu,c ... €1CKl\7IC'UC ' ' ' . on D em. 24.20 : ,cTEOV SChO 1ton , ,.. E1To,ovv-ro, ,

,

CtlltrylCTJ T,c

*

Q \ I ,.,oVI\EVOP,EVO, I'\ .Q

\

...

t

rfi

I).

I

l. \

t

\

,,

'ITEpL TWV EV 1TOIU!I. 'ITpayµ.aTwv, 1r11.71v EL µ:11 a.pa. \ , • \ ' ' , 1!l. l. ' \ , ,ca-rE11«,.,E 'ITOl\£P,OU, WC1"E ,ea, ff'f!PI. £1C'£lVOV aN\1}V £ltKI\TJCf.av

110,Tjccu w"Alov-rwv wp,cp.lvwv. Explicitly or implicitly the same description can be found in the other scholia (schol. Ar. Ach. 19; schol. Dern. 18.73, 19.123; schol. Aeschin. 1.60, 3.24} and in the notes on the term J,c,c~.,,clacvyK~71-roc (Poll. 8.116; Harp.; Suda; Etym.Magn.s.v.cvy""'JTOC J1eK>.:,,cla.; Photius s.v. 1.:qcla). However, the lexicographic tradition must be rejected, partly because the notes are muddled

40

HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET?

49

and contradictory and partly because they all refer to the period of twelve phylae. All the sc~oliasts and lexicographers seem in their descriptions of cvy1..71-roc lKKA1Jcla.refers to Demosthenes' speech On the Embassy (same reference in Etym.Magn.and the Suda),and there is no indication in the notes that the ancient and mediaeval scholars have based their descriptions on other sources (e.g., forensic speeches lost to us). Furthermore, the scholiasts and lexicographers refer invariably to three ecclesiaievery month instead of four ecclesiaievery prytany. 5 In so far as their notes are reliable they refer to the period of twelve phylae (when a prytany probably was concurrent with a month),• although their notes are brought as comments on passages in Aristophanes, Aeschines and Demosthenes. Thus the lexicographic tradition must be rejected. The description found in the Hellenistic decrees of what an EKKATJcla cvy1e"71-roc is could be reconciled with the information derived from Aeschines and Demosthenes. The same does not hold good of the lexicographers~ cvyK~,.,.,.o,and other explanation of the relationship between l1e1t">-.71cla, cvy1e.:\11To, were meetings of the assembly. The view that tKICATJcla, meetings summoned in addition to ordinary meetings' does not square with Arist. Ath.Pol., and it is plainly contradicted by IG 0 2 212. C

11

E1e1e'}..TJala, .:qcla, voµ.,µo,. I have argued above that this conception of the rern1 i.1e,cJ..:,,cla. cvy,c,\71-rocis not founded on reliable sources. Instead of interpreting Aristotle in the light of the lexicographers,. we should rather compare his account with the information obtained from the forensic speeches. Demosthenes 19.154 shows that there was a limit to the number of assemblies, and if we combine Demosthenes' statement with Aristorle·s account, the inference is that the forty assemblies represent the total of assemblies held every year. It follows that the forty assemblies comprised both J,c,c'>..TJCla, cvy,c>..11To, and J,c,c)..'1cla,TE'f'«yµlva, l1t Twv v&µw.,. If one of the four 1neetings held during a prytany was summoned by the prytaneisat short notice or in accordance with a decree passed on a previous assembly or by the Council, the meeting was an l KKA.,,clacvyKA'1-roc.On the other hand, if it was summoned by the prytaneis at their own initiative and at four days, notice it was an •ordinary meeting•. Now, Aristotle describes some fixed items on the agenda for all the four meetings held during a prytany. If the J,c1t>..TJcla, cuy1eA11To, were included among the four meetings we must assume that the people at an J1t,c'A.-,,cla coy1e,\71-roc had to deal with routine matters prescribed for this meeting before they could debate the urgent or important matter which had occasioned the summoning of the people at short notice or by a special decree. This assumption is proved by IG 111 212. IG ll1 2127 is an honorific decree for the Bosporan princes Spartocus, Paerisades and Apollonius. It was moved by Androtion of Gargettus and passed in the archonship of Themistocles (347/6) in a meeting of the assembly held during Prytany viii. After an enumeration of the honours bestowed on the princes it is decreed that a point of detail be postponed to a subsequent meeting. The prospective proedroifor the meeting fixed to Elaph .. 18 are requested to bring up for discussion the Athenian debt to the Bosporan princes. Now, the ecclesiaheld on Elaph. 18 in the year 347/6 was the notorious meeting when the peace with Philip was discussed. It was an EKK>..'lcla cvy,c.:\11Toc, since the date ' :m:

Syll.1 206; Tod 11 167. During the same meeting of the assembly the Athenians

concluded an aUiancewith Myrilene (IGn•213).

42

HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLES/A MEET?

Sl

of the meeting was fixed by a decree carried by Demosthenes in the eccltsiaheld on Elaph. 8 (see p.S5). Consequently the honorific decree for the Bosporan princes must have been passed either during the meeting held on Elaph. 8 or in the subsequent meeting held im• mediately after the Greater Dionysia, presumably on Elaph. 16 (see p.58) .. When IG 111 212 was passed it was known that the meeting on Elaph. 18 was scheduled for the discussion of the peace with Philip. Nevertheless the people decided to place on the agenda for this ecclesia an item which does not seem to have been urgentt and further• more the discussion of this point was to take place only after the assembly had dealt with some items concerning religious matters. The passage in question runs: 1rEp16J Twv 'XP111'-&:rwv Twv [ ot/,E, ]).[o ]µ.lvwv 'TOK ,rcx,c, -rote AEVICWVOC o,r[wc a]v a.1rolafiwc,v, XfY'IJJ,a-rlca, TOVC ,\axwc, 1TpoE8pEvE,v EVTw, 8~µ.Wf.[-ri},oy]807]&t1TL8/.,ca, 1rpoi8[pocoi] aa, 1rpwT011 p,ETa.-ra: tEp&,••• (JG 111 212.53-57). These lines must be compared with Aristotle's description of the agenda for two of the four la,) 1tEp1. 'T'wv«llwv it meetings held during a prytany: ai 8t 8vo (J,c,c).11c ,, , ' f' \ , f , , \ .... ,, , ' EtC&V, E'V a,c KEAEVOVC&Vo, voµ.o, Tp&a P,EV tEpwv xp71µ,aT,~Eiv.-rp,a. OE' ,c~pvf ,., ,ea, TrpEc/JEla,c,-rpla 8E oclwv (Ath.Pol. 43.6). A combination of JG 111 212.S3-.S7 and Ath.Pol.43.6 must lead to the conclusion that the ecclesiaon Elaph .. 18 was opened by a discussion of three items on lEptt. Then came the Athenian debt to the Bosporan princes as the t and the peace with first of the three items "'Jpvf ,v 1tai 1rpEc{JE.la1.c Philip can only have been the fifth item discussed in this crucial cvy1e,\11-roc was not reserved for the discussion meeting. So an l 1t1el71cla of some urgent matter. It was not an additional meeting, but one of * the forty l1t1..TJcla, described by Aristotle. ~

~

Distribution of Ecclesiaiaccording to Days of the Prytany

If the prytaneis were empowered

only four meetings of the assembly during their term of office, they must have reserved at least one meeting for one of the last days of the prytany. so that they, in an emergency, always had the possibility of calling up an l1t1tATJCl« cvy,c,\17-roc.The result must have been a concentration of ecclesiaiheld on the last days of the prytany, and this assumption seems to be confirmed by the epigraphical evidence. In his study The AtlienianYear, B. D. Meritt has collected and discussed the dated meetings of the assembly recorded in the decrees of the period between 346/ 5 (the first known exam pie of a ref ere nee both to the

43

to summon

HOW OFTEN DID 1HE ECCLES/A MEET?

52

*

conciliar and to the festival year) and 310/09 (the last example before the introduction of the two additional phy lae ). Meritt discusses a total of 70 decrees passed on 63 meetings of the assembly. Of these 63 ecclesiai38 are assigned to ordinary years, 24 to intercalary years. whereas in one case the type of the year cannot be ascertained. A tabulation of the evidence adduced by Meritt shows that in ordinary years more than one-third and in intercalary years more than twofifths of all meetings of the assen1bly were held in the last quarter of the prytany. The calendar equations, however, are often restored and many of Meritt's restorations are debatable. Accordingly it is impossible at the present state of the inquiry to arrive at any indisputable conclusion. This complicated problem must be reserved for a future study.

and the Number of Ordinary and Extraordinary Ecclesiai I have only briefly discussed the most important source for the Aeschines

2.72

relationship between ordinary and extraordinary meetings of the assembly, Vi{., Aeschines' information about the number of J,c,c;\"lcla, c6yK"71To,compared to the number of ecclesiai prescribed by law .. I will quote this crucial passage once more and this time in its context: "I: I\ 8'E X EppoV'l'JCOV ' ' - oc.' 1r01\LTCH; \... rtJV ' ovcav _,._ oµ.oAoyovµEvwc ' \ ' 'A8 .,,... Es-EAELfl"OV 71µ,wv ,

\

,

~'

,.

\

,

\ ,

'

8

'Y

t

\

''f

'

PO:&WP· ffl\E,ovc 0£ EltKll1JCLac CV)"KJ\1]TOVC 71vuyKa1oEC E EKK1171c,a:~E,v µ.ETQ: J_ IQ \ IQ 911 \ I J .-. I f'1 tot _% J..-~\ \ 'Po~ov KC%(, opv,.,ov, '1J'TCXCT'ET«yµoac El( TWV VOf"JJV.OV'T(JJ O ,,v ,..,,UI\Ept%

8

, , , • 11vay1eac , , 811ypa.'tla, ,.,. .l....t..J. u .J. .J..,':'~ l(a,, €1ruc,vovva Ta, 'ff'pa:yµ«Ta .,,,1~icµ.a .n. .,,..,,,,coy-uv 1 WCTE ... 'P"'wv ...L'' ,ea, .. E'Ta.ipwv ' ' - «fY'ITOC 1 EK1TI\Etv TTJV o a,avuivc, Ere-rwv TWV ~

'n I

'

TtXX&CrTJV

,A,VTtOXOV

',,

... V7TTJPET&KWV ' ...

'f'OV E7T, TWV

E1TirfJ 8vvap,E, TET«yp.£11011

x,

,,.

1

.... '

, , .... ,

..

KC,U ~7l'TE'1I T'OV CTptXT'JYOV

Aeschines offers chis piece of information in a digression on the political and military situation leading up to the Peace of Philocrates (Aeschin. 2.70-73). The passage is opened by the phrase fJouAoµ.a,8' '1p.lJ.cKai TOVC l(a.tpovcV1TOJJ,injcct, Jv olc l~ov'AEvEcBE (70), and the end of the argument is J,,,., 8' ~718ij

Tov

....

\ I • I ... • /._J_ I \ I I 8 I \ \ l\qw, a,covc«T€ TOV "l"l'l',cµa.Toc, 1((%(. av«p,VTJC 7JTE TOV 11'01\Eµov, ,C(XC, T1JV .Q , .... Et.p71vqv'TOVC 'TWV 0711\W,.. 1]yEµovac, «1\1\U µ,71 T'OVC 1rp~cfJ~&c, a1ra&TEI.T'E (73). In these few paragraphs Aeschines surveys the whole war from 357 to 346, and consequently we must determine which period Aeschines has in mind when he refers to the numerous EKK'A71cla, cvy1eA.71-ro,. Aeschines' point of departure is the struggle for Amphipolis at the A

,

,

'

...

•

\

•

-

f:

,

_,_ \

44

\

'

\

'

\

,

HOW OFTENDID nm ECCLES/A MEET!

S3

beginning of the war, but the information about the J1c30+4x 29). EL: Htsptrio. 7 (1938) 476-79 no.JI: Yu.a: Pryt. i-iv arc of 39 and Elaph. 12-Pryt. vii.l4-=2-48th day (Meritt 122). bnu.cALARY Pryt. v-x of 38 days each. The month repeated is Poscideon II. The nine months Hecatombaion to Anthesterion amount to 266 days (Sx JO+4x 29). Ex.: IG 111 336b: Elaph. 30==Pryt. viii.26- 296th day (Meriu 119). Since the Athenians allowed slight deviations from this standard scheme, my equations (Pryt. viii.I==Blaph. 14 in an ordinary year and Elaph. J in an intercalary year) may be wrong by one or at most two days in either direction. But this inaccuracy is of no consequence for my ar-gumcnt since it does not affect the dis• tribution of assemblies in Pryt. vii and Pryt. vill.

54

HOW OFTEN DID

Conciliar Calffldar 26 27

240

241 242 243 244

28 29

30 31

24S 246 247

248

32 33 34

249

3S

2SO

Prye. viii, l

251 2SZ

2 3

253 254 2S.S 256 2S8 2S9 260 261

264 26.S

266 '167 268 UIJ

n 8

Report to the Council Elaph. S-7

tcclaia Blaph.8

9 10

11 12

13 14 IS

Dionysia Dionysia Dionysia

Dionysia Dionysia Pandia?

s

18

6

19 20

«clesia Elaph. 18 tecltsia Elaph. 19

19

20

63

Evmt

4

12 13 14 IS 16 17 18

263

Ftstiwll Calffldar 4

«~sia Elaph. 16

11

262

ECCLES/A MEET?

16 17

7 8 9 10

2S7

nm

21

22 23 24

tcclesiaElaph. 20-24 (??)

2J 26 27 28 29 30 1

tccltsia Elaph. 2511

Moun. 1 Z

233}decree of the Council Moun. 3 INTERCALARY YEAR

Day

Conciliar Calendar

'U,7

268

Pryt. vii,3S 36

269

37

Event

Ftstival Calendar Elaph. I 2 3

11

Following Pritchett and Neugebauer {ll), I hold that lltfll 4,llwwrocis the 2.Sthday of the month both in hollow and in full months. Thosr who accept Meriu·s reconstrucdon (4S) must admit: that this meeting was held on Elaph. 24 if Elaph. was a hollow month.

5 The Athenian Ea::laia

55

64

Day

HOW OFTEN DID 11-IE ECCLES/A MEET? Condliar

Calendar 270

Pryr. viii,t

276

6

2n

7

278 279 280 281 282 283

8 9

284 28S

14

14 15 16 17 18

IS

19

286 287

16

21 22

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

23

27

24

28 29 30 1

291

292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299

2

3 4 5

10 11

12 13

17 18 19 20

2S 26 27

28

Evtnt

4

271 272 273 274 27S

288 289 290

ir

38

Ftstival CaltndaT

n 8

9 10 11 12 13

Report to the Council Elaph. S-7H

tccltsiaElaph.

8

Dionysia

Dionysia Dionysia Dionysia Dionysia Pandia

tcclesiaElaph. 16 tcclesiaElaph. 18 tccltsiaElaph. 19

eccltsiaElaph. 20-24 (? ?)

ecclesiaElaph. 25

Moun. 1 2. 2

3}

decree of the Council Moun. J 3 11 In Note A on p.S6 I suggested that Aeschin. 2.47-J4 and 3.67-68 referred to one and the same meeting of the assembly. held on Elaph. 8. Even accepting rhc traditional view and assuming the existence of two tcdtsiai in the be-ginning of Elaphebolion, we cannot place the other tccltsia later than Elaph. 4-S: Elapla.a:tcdtsiA (Aeschin. 3.67-68). Elaph. 1: arrival of Philip"s envoys (Aeschin. J.68). Elaph. 6: Demosthenes· decree on protdria.passed before the arrival of Philip·, envoys (Aeschin. 2.SS). Elaph. 4-1: tccltsia. the Athenian ~nvoys• report to the people (Aeschin. 2.47-54). It is not auested and improbable that an assembly was held on the first day of a prytany and. moreover. the equation of Elaph. 5 in an intercalary yearis Pryt. viii. I only on the assumption that five of the first nine months were of 30 days. If the distribution is 4x JO+ s x 29 the equation of Elaph. s is Pryt. vii.38. Consequently, the assembly held on Elaph. 8 muSl. on any rheory, be the first tccltsia held in Pryt. viii. 29

56

HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLES/A MEET?

65

The number of ecclauti held in 347/6, Prytany viii We can now form an opinion of how many ecclesiaithe Athenians held in 347/6, Pryt. viii We must keep in mind, however,. that our reconstruction is subject to certain reservations since three questions were left unanswered. It was impossible to decide (a}whether the year 347/6 was an ordinary year or an intercalary year, (b) whether the eccltsiaiheld on Elaph. 18 and 19 rated as one or two meetings of the assembly, and (c) whether the envoys were appointed at the assembly held on Elaph. 19 or at a special meeting convened on one of the days Elaph .. 20-24 .. Accordingly, no simple conclusion can be drawn, and we are left with 21 = 8 solutions to our problem.. A clearer picture emerges if we tabulate the possibilities:

«duua on Elaph. 20-24

INTBRCAJ.Aar 1. Elaph. YEAll 2. Elaph. 3. Elaph. 4. Elaph. J. Elaph. 6. Elaph.

0aDINA.aT'

Yl!il.

I 16 18 19

ea 22

1. Elaph. 8 2. Elaph. 16

3. Elaph. 18-19 4. Elaph. ea 12 J. Elaph. ll

no

tcelffla

1. Elaph. 8

Elaph. 16 3.. Elaph. 18 4. Elaph. 19 s. Elaph. zs 2.

on Elaph. 20-24

1. Elaph. 8 2. l!laph. 16 3. Elaph. 18-19 -t. Elaph. ll

2S

1. Elaph. 16 2. Elaph. 18

3. Elaph. 19 4. Elaph. ea22 s. Elaph. 2J'

Elaph. 18-19 - 2 «clcriai

1. Elaph. 16 2. Elaph. 18-19 3. Eliiph. u 22

-t. Elaph. ll

Elaph. 18-19 -1 «clai4

I. Elaph. 16 2. Elaph. 18

I. Elaph. 16 2. Elaph. 18-19

3. Elaph. 19 4. Elaph. 2J

3. Elaph. 2S

Elaph. 18-19 -ze«laiAi

Elaph. 18-19 -=I «derio:

On the basis of this ta hie we may return. to the two sources which arc central for a proper understanding of what an J,c1eA7JCl« cvy1.:qcla,cvy,c;\111'0, exceeded the number of ordinary meetings. If we will maintain the cvy,c,\,.,Toc, we must postulate the traditional definition of JK1e>.:qcla existence not only of one more ordinary meeting in addition to the doubtful electoral assembly but also of at least two more extra• ordinary meetings which have left no traces whatsoever in our sources. It is quite impossible that three or more meetings are passed over in silence by Demosthenes and Aeschines in their detailed accounts of this central period, and consequently the accepted c6y1tATJTOC must be abandoned. Dern .. definition of the term J,e1, ll'fl IJ.OM)v'inrepE&p~"'lt:,a).M Kai 1repl avp.µaxia1.Mmrov ffPE0/3EL(, Pov· Aakn?raiiJ &iiJlOwPTO,rpo/Jo,JAEIJIJ,· 1-'fw,Kai ,r..71 lp. /JovAEIITTJplw, cJv,cl71Toc c-rpaT['l'YWfl]ff«payyEll\av,■w11 K«i afl"O/3ovA'ijcf.1(1(>-..,,cla [,cvplu] b TW& 8Ett-rpw,(,a a. 185/4).. 1. JG 112 954: {Jov>.~El-'] Pov..\EUTTJP"P[, cu1v«A71-roc..,,cla,,cvp,a,, but, on the assumption that honorary decrees were frequently passed in an J,c,cA"'lcla,cup{a, the epigraphical evidence is not incompatible with the view that the ratio of J,c,cA11cia, ,cvp,a, to eccksiai in the Hellenistic period was I :2. In any case, it is very likely that the proportion of t,c,cA:,,cla,,cv{J'a,was higher than in the fourth century. 30 I should like to thank Professor R. S. Stroud for reading and commenting on a draft of this paper.

80

ADDENDA 74: A fifth example is /. Delos 1507.39-40: lu'A11oi.a. wy,c~flTO( l[v T]wc. 8eaTpw, · U,IET Ja?OTparrrywP,rapayyE&Aavrwv( 144/3 ?). 76: Cf. also JG 112 977 34 (= Agora XV.246): i,ui~:qaiaIv Twt.]8edTpw, ,t, µero.)(8Ei{aa]iK. flE&pWEW(KaTa TO \Ll,W,t{oµa6 ....... elw)Ev.(131/0);Hesperia 26 (I 9S7) 77-78 no. 23 (= SEG XVl.102): tuA11al.atv TWt.6ed.Tpwi ft µ)ETax6eiaa l,c Ileep[atew(' mni TO1/IT/4'wµa6 ...... Elffev.(150·100). For a similar formula concerning the boule cf. Agoro XV.177. For an ecclesia

moved to another place cf. also SEG XVI.88 and XXVI.120. 77: Another ecclesiaheld on the fourth day of the prytany is attested in SEG XXVIIl.89 (119/8). 77: More precisely: the prytaneis had to arrange the meetings they had sum• mooed. Ca. 400 the chairmanship proper passed from the prytaneis to the proedroi, but the p,ytaneis and their epistates still had to appoint the proedroi in the morning (cf. infrapage 135), to hand over to the proedroi the agenda of the meeting and, with the proedroi, to preside in the ecclesia(cf. suprapage 34 ).

,c,vpiaotiy,c).qr~ in the period of ten phylae 79: The evidence for an /,a,c~r,ola is discussedinfra pages 88-89.

81

When Did the Athenian EcclesiaMeet?

that the prytaneissummon the ecclesia four times in a prytany (Ath.Pol. 43.3), and he goes on to describe in some detail the obligatory items on the agenda of all four meetings. 1 Neither Aristotle nor any other source speaks explicitly about the distribution of the four meetings within the prytany. It is apparent from the law on epicheirotonia ton nomonthat the first ecclesiain a year was regularly held on Hekatombaion 11 = prytany I 11.2 Another law prescribes a meeting of the ecclesiato be held in the precinct of Dionysus after the Greater Dionysia and the Pandia.1 In the 320's one ecclesiain Boedromion was held in the theatre and devoted to a review of the epheboi (Ath.Pol. 42.4). Apart from these three sessions we have no evidence of any fixed meeting days. The electional assembly was held in prytany VII-X when the omens were favourable (Ath.Pol. 44.4). In every prytany one of the four meetings was an ecclesia kyria (Ath.Pol. 43.4-5). Aristotle describes the agendaof the ecclesia kyria before the agenda of the other three meetings, probably because the ecclesia kyria was the most important meeting. He implies nothing about the sequence of the four sessions. So to answer the question, when did the Athenian ecclesia meet, we must tum from the literary sources to the epigraphical evidence. From ea 310 the Athenians began to record in the preambles of their

A

RISTOTLE STATES BRIEFLY

The followingwill be cited by author's name: M. H. HANSEN, "How Often Did the &:desia Meet?" GRBS 18 0977) 43-70, and ""E«d.1JU&a:tvyd.11~ in Hellenistic Athens....,.GRBS 20 (1979) 149-56~ W. A. McD0NALDt The PoliticalMeeting Places of the Greeks (Baltimore 1943)~B. D. MERITT, The Athenian Year (Berkeley/Los Anaeles 1961)~J. D. MIKALS0N, The Sacredand Civil Calendarof the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975)~M. J. OSBORNE, Natura/iz.ationin Athens (Brussels 1981); W, K. PRITCHETT, A«ient Athenian Calendarson Stone (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1963); W. K. PRITCHETT and 0. NEUGEBAUER, The Calendarsof Athens (Cambridge (Mass.] 1947). It is of no consequencefor my argumentwhether or not the Ath.Pol. is by Aristotle and I take no position on the question. z The tm.xEcpoT011111 ,-cZ.,vo,uuv took place at the ecclesia held on pryt. I 11 (Dern. 24.20, 26, 27). If some laws were voted down, nomothesiahad to be discussed again at the last of the three ecclesiai (of the prytany): "'" TEAEvrau:r11-rw11.,.pu;,., l1Cd."1Jtnai11 (24.21) .. n,11 Tpi'M)V am&~a, EICICA1J(TUJII (24.25). So the Athenians9 in 353/2, held only 3 eccksiai in a prytany: cf. Addendum, i,ifra 349. 1 Dern. 21.8-9. C/. McDonald 47-51 and Hansen (1977) 57-58. 1

83

332

WHEN DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLES/A MEET?

decrees the day of the prytany on which an ecclesiawas held (the first attested example is JG 112 105 of 368/7). From the 340's the day of the month was recorded as well (first seen in JG 112 229 of 341/0):' After ea 340 most decrees are dated in accordancewith both the conciliar and the festival calendar. If we focus on the period of ten phylai (368/7-308/7), we have no less than 104 dated decrees inscribed on stone. This evidence has been thoroughly studied by epigraphists in order to reconstruct the Athenian calendars, especiallythe festival calendar, and the relationship between the calendars. The main purpose is often to find a plausible restoration of a mutilated decree. The epig• raphists have paid little attention to the constitutional implications, apart from J. D. Mikalson who has a short but illuminating section (182-93) on meeting days of the ecclesia.Mikalson, however, concentrates on the festival calendar and investigates only the relationship between meeting days of the ecclesiaand the days of the month. 6 Accordingly, he omits all decrees that record only the day of the prytany. This method is probably valid for the period of twelve phy/ai, when months were more or less concurrent with prytanies, at least in ordinary years. In the period of ten phylai, however, it is not satisfactory to tabulate meetings of the ecclesiaaccording to the festival calendar. The people were convened by the prytaneis and the boule in accordance with the conciliar calendar, four times every prytany. So what matters is the day of the prytany, and not the day of the month. • The earliest preserved calendar equation is from an inscription of the Athenian clerouchy on Samos dated 346/S (Meritt 72-73); it is a fair assumption, but only an assumption, that the clerouchs imitated Athenian practice. JG 112 404, usually dated ea 350 (see irifra ad no. 65), is probably the earliest extant text recording both the day of the month and the day of the prytany. 6 Mikalson ( 185) refers to 26 attested meeting days of the ecclesiaduring the period of the ten tribes. But he includes Dern. 24.26 recording a meeting of the nomothetai (and not of the ecclesia)on Hek. 12, and a reference in JG 112 1673.9-10 to a decree of the people allegedly pasR;d on Thar. 23: (KaTa tf.,,jt/)i]uµa TOVlnjµov 8 Xapuc.ut&rJ.. Et1ru,,9aP'Y"JMWlHKµ11v~ oy&,11,4,6£11[ovro~,J. But it is unparalleled to record the date in a reference to a decree, and there may well be a stop after Elmv (" ... according to the decree of the people proposed and carried by Chariclides. On the 23rd of Thargelion ... "1 ). So we are left with 24 attested meeting days, viz. Hek. 11 (Dern. 24.26, JG 112 365), Met. 9 (/G 111 338), Met. 24 (Dem. S0.4), Boed. 11 (JG 111 380). Pyan. 16 (JG VII 4254).. Maim. 11 (Hesperia 9 11940] 345-48), Maim. 30 {Hesperia 30 (1961) 289-92). Gam. 11 (JG 111 450), Garn. 30 (Hesperia 4 (1935) 35-37)., Elaph. 8 (Aeschin. 3.66-6 7). Elaph. 12 ( Hesperia1 (l 938) 476- 79), Elaph. 14 (Thuc. 4.118), Elaph. 18 (Aeschin. 2.61), Elaph. 19 (Aeschin. 2.61, JG 112 34S)., Elaph. 25 (Aeschin. 2.90, 3.73),. Elaph. 30 (/G 111 336b~ 354), Thar. 11 (JG 112 351. VII 4252-53), Thar. 14 (/G 111 352), Thar. 29 (Aeschin. 3.27), Skir. 10 (/G 112 349)~ Skir. 16 (Dem. 19.58), Skir. 18 (SEG XXI 272), Skir. 27 (Dem. 19.60)~ Skir. 30 (/G 112 415).

84

WHEN DID

nm

ATIIENIAN ECCLES/A MEET?

333

Admittedly, the people did not meet on festival days, and Mikalson has admirably demonstrated that the ecclesia was convened neither on annual nor on monthly festival days ·except in an emergency.8 Now in all twelve months, days 1-4 and 6-8 were festival days. Consequently it is very common to find an ecclesiaon the 29th or 30th of the preceding month or shortly after the long period of festival days, preferably on the 11th day of the month, as pointed out by

Mikalson (185). This is, in my opinion, the reason that the first ecclesia in the year was held on Hekatombaion 11 and not earlier. Apart from this effect of the festival calendar on the sessions of the ecclesifl,there is probably no connection between the festival calendar and the meeting days of the ecclesia.We must tum to the conciliar year and ask whether the information we have about meetings held on certain days of the prytany can shed some light on the problem of when the Athenian ecclesiamet. From the period 368/7-308/7 we have 104 decrees of the people recording the day of the prytany on which the decree was passed. Occasionallytwo or more decrees derive from the same session,1 and so we have evidence of only 95 dated meetings of the ecclesia.During this span of 61 years the Athenians must have held some 2250 .. ecclesiai. Thus, our sources cover only about 4% of the meetings. This is sufficient for our purpose, however, if we have reason to as.1umethat the preserved decrees are evenly distributed among the four ecclesiaiheld in a prytany. Aristotle's description of the agenda of the meetings reveals that certain issues were reserved for certain meetings: at the ecclesia kyria the Athenians voted on impeachments of officials, defence, and domestic policy. Two other meetings were • For the period of ten phylai Mikalson accepts only four ecclesiai held on festival days, viz. Hek. 12 (Dern. 24.26), Elaph. 8 (Aeschin. 3.66-67), Elaph. 12 (Hesperia 1 {1938] 476- 79), and Elaph. 14 (Thuc. 4.118). Of these the first can be dismissed as a meeting of the nomothetai (see supra n.S). On the other hand,. Mikalson rejects /G 111 359, a decree of 326/S restored by Meritt to give the equation [Elaphebolion] 8 == prytany [VII] 30. Mikalson correctly notes that ['E.\a"Po)J.]ru~ is restored, and I admit that epigraphically there are other possibilities ("E,caroµ/3,u.ld~, ·AllihurtJf)f,oi~.. I~l'OOT'' Kp&IIOVC.l'JI K(H TCX. WV\Cl ff'UVT(I 1

I

\

\

I

\

\

~\

\

I

A

11

Kol -roii[[T tL/,Ei"«,,cvp,ol •lcu,. As mentioned above the Greek is usually rendered the proedroicount the votes," but •ro count' is a mistranslation of Kplv£,v. This verb implies some decision made by the pr«droi, and the correct translation is "the proedroijudge the cltdrotoniai..,11 Now the show of hands can only have involved a decision on the part of the pr«droi if they had to estimate the majority ]]

0

instead of counting the votes. 2.. Next comes a curious passage in the sixth book of the Laws where Plato prescribes that the officers of the army be elected by chdrotonia and that the vote be taken by the whole army (ea 5000 men) under 11

Kp/wu,is the verb uxd by Aristotle to describe the assessment of the majority, not only in this passage but also in his account of the constitution of 411 (Atlt.Pol. 30.S; cf. S11J'1'4p.124).

109

*

130

*

HOW DID TIIE AlHENIAN ECCLES/A VOTE?

the supervision of the thirty-seven nomopltylakts.The last section of the passage runs as follows: -rtic 8i a.µ,,/,,cfJ11rlJcr" -rwv xc,po-rovuiiv µ.lxp, 8voiv f l1,a,.'TO6E'Tpl'ToV laa,iiµ,,/,icffqrg'T&C. 8,at/nJt/,ltEc8a., 'f'OV'TOVC olc1TEp"'ic xc,pO"l'ovlacµ.l,,-povJ,cac#f'OU: ZKUCTOV ;v (756B).It is usually taken for granted that the votes had to be counted and that any protest would result in a recount, perhaps even in two against the cheirotonia recounts of all the hands. 11 Against this it can be objected, first that Plato nowhere says that the votes were counted, second that it is grotesque to provide for a double recount of all the hands, and third that it makes no sense to transfer the powers to the presiding board of officials (either the thirty-seven nomophylakesor the prytaneis)after no less than three cheirotoniaiall involving an exact count of ea 5000 votes. On the other hand, if we assume that the majority was esti• mated by the presiding board, the elaborate procedure in cases of doubt is only natural, and we have in fact an exact parallel to the voting procedure adopted by some of the Swiss Landsgmteinden(n.17). Now the ideal state described in the Laws is certainly not Athens, but it is worth noting that Plato, especially concerning procedural details, has of ten modelled his Utopia on Athenian institutions. Plato•s vocabulary for military officers shows that in this section of the Laws he has Athens in mind. and so his provisions for electing military officers are probably a more or less modified copy of the Athenian procedure. 3. One more indication that the votes were not counted can be obtained by comparing the cheirotoniaiin the ecclesiawith the p.sephophoriai in the dikasteria.In the courts the votes were always counted with precision, and accordingly we have some information on the exact number of votes cast by the jurors: Socrates, for example, was found guilty by a majority of sixty votes (Plat. Ap. 36A) whereas Aeschines was acquitted by thirty votes (Plut. Mor. 840c). Cephisodotus escaped capital punishment by three votes only (Dern. 23.167), and Hyperides {3.28) states that Aristophon was acquitted iv ToVTq, T'f' 8ucacn,plq, .,,a.pa.8vo t/njcf,ovc .. Only a tie saved Leocrates from a sentence of death (Aeschin. 3.252), and even in inscriptions the exact number of votes cast is sometimes recorded (IG 111 1641s). Although the preserved speeches contain references to hundreds of decrees passed by the people in the assembly t we have not a single piece of 11

England 557; Morrow 160.

110

HOW DID TIIE A1HENIAN ECCLES/A VOTE?

131

information of the same kind concerning cMrotoniai.which points to

the conclusion that cxaa figures were unknown. The only source where numbers arc mentioned is Demosthenes• statement that Acschines was elected pylagonu by three or four votes: ,rpofJ>.tq6iic _t_' .J.L Xf:ll""'OVfJCU.VTWV UUTOI' a.vEpp ,,v., fflJl\«')'Opoc OVTOC ICCU -rpu,,11 '] T~rr«pt»'II (Dern. 18.149); but this scornful remark must be grossly exaggerated and is useless as a source whether we assume that the votes were counted or not. Conversely, Thucydides reports that after the debate between Cleon and Diodorus the people overruled their former decision by a close vote: 1eallylvovro lv Tfj XE,ptrro.,,l,«)'Xwµ.aAo,, l1tpaTTJC• 8i,} -roii .1,o8oTov (Thuc. 3.49.1). The vague statement is in conformity with my theory, bur no conclwion can be drawn since it is most unlikely that Thucydides would have informed us of the exaa figures even if they were known. 4. So far I have dealt only with clteirotoniai. We have in fact some evidence of the counting of votes cast by the people in the assembly. Otizcnship decrees had to be ratified by a vote taken among 6000 citizens (0cm. S9.89), and similarly a quorum of 6000 was required in order to grant an adtia (Dern. 24.45) or to allow the nomotltttaito pass \

,

~-

,

...

•

1

,

11

a voµ.ocJ,,• dv8pl (Andoc .. 1.87). Here an exact count of the votes was necessarytand the crucial point is that chtirotoniain these cases was replaced by a vote taken by ballot. 18 Jm,µ-q lfa1eKx,>do,c ,cpvfJ&r,v ./nrfn(op,J110K is the statutory requirement of all the laws prescribing a quorum. The reason may be that voting by ballot is secret whereas the voters reveal their position in a cheirotonia.But we must not forget that citizenship decrees in the first instance were passed by a 11 So a citizen show of hands and only ratifiedby the pseplwphoria. would in any case have revealed his stand in the first vote, and accordingly secrecy cannot have been the primary concern. It is tempting to suggest that pseplwphoria was prescribed because it was the only possible way of counting the votes .. Additional evidence of this view can be found in some decrees published on stone in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In a few decrees of the first century a.c. passed by ballot a count of the votes is recorded towards the end of the inscription: wv ,/rqtf,,»v at .,,.;\,jpE ],c

Born

• Jn addition to the nomoi prescribing psepltopltorid we have one example of a decree ordering that an «duili take the vote by ballot instead of by a show of hands, l'i(. Callixcnw:· decree ordering the execution of the generals in 406 (Xen. Hell. 1.7.9). 11 Hamen. GR&S17.12'-27.

111

132

HOW DID nlE ATIIENIAN ECCLES/A VOTE?

ale l8o1ec,ffJV iy./,cpop,Jvqv yvw[p.1711 ,cupla.v E lvu,--) TpHIICOV'TG 11lv-rc,al Tn-pV1r7JµJvu[,ale ou,cl8o"c' ov&cp,la.11 The usual form of but in this case the vote is voting in the «clesia was still cladroton.ia:, described in the following way: [d "'f'0«8poc·oT'f' 8o«E, «Jp,a EL,a, .,.cl •

]

,

•

,

-.1

...

,

,

...

apO.TW , 'I" XEl.pu.ffo4,opu:,. 9

use your hand." The inference is that voting by show of hands could only give a rough estimate of the majority and not an exact count. 110: I can now add seven more examples of the exact count of votes cast by the jurors: Phayllus was convicted by two votes in a dike klllcegorias(Ar. Vesp. 1207); Speusippus obtained leu than 200 votes in a grapheparanomon against l..eogoras (Andoc. 1.17); Nicodemus was acquitted by four votes in a graphexenias (lsae. 3.37); Euaion was convicted by one vote in a homicide trial (heard by a dicasterion?) (Dern. 21.7 5). Other inscriptions recording the number of votes are:/G 112 1646.B;Hesperia16 (1947) no. 51.57ff. 112: In note 22, for "E""1µ.·Apx.1884 read: /G 112 I 03S, cf. also Heliodorus Aethiop. 1.14. In note 24, after Iasus, read: L. Robert, .itudes anatoliennes 451 (1/liJ4>ot for: 70; against 4). Furthermore, add: Phygela: SEG IV.513.11 ( ~ftq,o,,for; 350; Cyrene: SEG IX.3S4.26 (>..euKai sc. aJ,f/4,oc. for: 53). I owe the last two references to P J. Rhodes. 114: For a new and different interpretation of the subdivisions of the audito• rium cf. Pnyx Ill, cf. supra28~33. ~ 116: On 'I/1rpoef>pe6avaa ,wAr, cf. supra30-33.

118

HOW DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLES/A VOTE? 117: In Aristotle's Politics one interesting passage bears on this problem but does not refer explicitly to Athens: mruw.orr,puw · f/

'"(a/JaJrOK."A.flpwreov ~ li.~M Ti Towiirov 1r0tf11'Eov (1318a37•bl). Commentators and tmslaton follow Bonitz, Index Aristoteli• cw: dffOKATJpWTeov, 'sorte decemendum est'. But 'to make a decision by lot' is certainly not the usual meaning of a.1rOK.XT/PotW. The meaning is rather 'by lot to appoint one or a smallnumber from a largernumber of candidates'. So Aristotle probably refers to a procedure by which a small number of voters is selected by lot and entrusted with the decision of an issue when even a repeated show of hands does not allow to decide where the majority is. Aristotle's piece of information is a good parallel to the provision Plato Laws 156 B, discus.,edsupra109•l 0. 'T(U

117: An account of the Athenian voting procedure is not complete without a discuwon of how the show of hands was used in election of magistrates, ambassadors and other officials. Especially the election of strategoi has attracted much attention, but most of the elaborate reconstructions proposed by e.g. H.T. Wade-Gery and E.R. Staveley must be rejected because they presuppose an exact count of the hands. By far the best treatment of the problem is M. Pierart, 'A propos de l'election des stra~ges atheniens," BHC 98 ( 1974) 12546, with references to earlier literature. Cf ..also his Platonet la cite grecque (Bruxelles 1974) 242-44 {election of strategoi)and 291•95 (election of astynomoi). Combining the little information we have, in inscriptions and speeches, of the Athenian procedure with Plato's description, in Laws 763 O-E, of the election of astynomoi in Magnesia,Pierart suggests the following procedure: the candidates were named only in the electoral assembly and there was no previous nomination. The election was conducted tribe by tribe. As soon as a candidate of the first tribe was proposed, the people would vote for or against the candidate. If he was rejected, another candidate would be named etc. The first candidate who got a majority would be declared elected and the procedure would be repeated for the second tribe etc.Pierart's reconstruction is basically accepted by P .J. Rhodes, 'Notes on Voting in Athens,' GRBS 22 ( 1981) 129.32, but Rhodes objects that it would be unfair to vote on the candidates one by one in the order they were named because, if the first candidate had a majority, no other candidate would be named and voted on. He suggests instead that all candidates were named before the voting began. This device, however, would not remove the unfairness eff ectively, for the Athenians would still have to take the vote on the candidates in a fixed order and stop the election as soon as the required number had ob• tained a majority so that the rest of the candidates had no chance. I suggest 9 The Athenian F.a:lesia

119

HOW DID THE ATHENIAN ECCLES/A VOTE?

instead to adduce another passagefrom Plato's Laws viz., his description of the election of strategoi (7S5 C-D). Comparing this passagewith the passage describing the election of astynomoi I hope to propose a more plausible reconstruction of the procedure. Let me first quote the two passages in question.

755 C•D: o-rparrr,otk:µtv et abrrit nit fl'O:\ewtT1lV11X' ol voµ.cx/»J'Aa.K.Et 1rpo/JaXAeo8wv'alpeio8wv 6. tK 1WV 1rJJOIJX118eJl'T'W&I 11dvrec;ol TOO1ro>..eµ.ov ICOWWvoi -yel)OIJevoi TE EVTaLC: 'l}NXiat(,cal,,,-yvdµeVOt eKliaTOTE. Ed.v 6e Tt(' (I.pa &,q} TWt TWII JJ.fl 1rpo{je/JA1lJJEvwv dJJeivw11 elvcuTWV 1rpo/J'Ar,8Evrwv Twck-, l1Jovoµd.aaf; d.v6'lJTOV6vnva 1rpaO..eio111 XEI.IJOTOIM. 7i')'VJ7TattTOVTOV( elvat '1Tpa, rrryooc;... 9

763 D-E: 6ei M} Kai roUTOIX 6vvaTouc;TEelvcu Kai oxoMtovrat TWV KOU/Wv µev 1rac;OJJflpEKTWllJJE""(WTWII Tlµflµa,TWJJ EffqJ.EAeio8at · 6td 1rpo{ja'A.Aeo8w aorovdµov 611OJ) 1'3ov:\11rai, &axet.pOToV178evTWIJ Be Kai, tupuwµivwv ek l~ ok lw 1rXeiaroiyiyvwllTOJ.,TmK TPEixlion 8. Aeschines critici1.es Demosthenes' proposal: ~,.,pori'b,,r . .. ,yp4'/;;f,ii,f/)it7µ« ... •"">.'J'lt10.11To, Tjj crci.Arfyy, cnJP~J1«fdJIJV'f d.1roTtjt l.-:,c:X!JO'&G.'So.l,Tovr Ta&rAa Xa/30...Tat (Plut. P'1ocion15. I). This piece of evidence points to one more occasion when the eeclesiamust have concluded its husiness within a few hours. (6) In 339 Philip's capture of Elatea took the .-\thenians hy surprise. The event was reported to Athens in the evening; the next day the citizens assembled on the Pnyx, without any summons, while the council in the b,mltttltrion discussed the situation and prepared the agenda. The meeting of the assembly was not opened until the council had finished its session in the bouleuterion:Tffa· wnpo.ltt1LµO~ (1,rov &e 8ijµo11TfTPG.fUf Titr ,rpUT4.,t,cH ~,ca.a-1'171 (At/1. Pol. 43. 3). The word a.,t,io-tµosis almost a hapa.-.; in Greek literature.

It does not occur again until ..\elius .-\ristides (Orat. 50{261. 98), jn a passage which does not provide any clue to the exact meaning of the word. Xor is it exit certainly plained by any of the lexicographers. Since it is derived from ti,,iivcu,

133

46

TIIB DURATION OF A MEETING

denotes a day on which the council was not summoned, but which days were «4>ff,p«?The translation offered by LSJ is "holiday," which may be on the right lines but is no more than a guess. Neither the assembly (Aeschin. 3. 67) nor the court (schol. Ar. Vesp. 663) was summoned on festival days, and we may assume that the council's ~,-itpcu af/>fl1,µo, included festival days. Mikalson's careful investigation of attested meeting days of the council (Athenian Yeari pp. 193-97) points to the conclusion that the boulc (Hke the ccclesia)did not meet oh annual festival days but (unlike the ecclesia) was regularly summoned on monthly festival days. In one respect, then, the interpretation "festival days" is too comprehensive; in another, it is too narrow, since not only (annual) festival days, but also ,),uipcu 2 On the other hand, there is nothing in Arisl.roq,pl,.lffwere presumably totle's text to indicate that the t)µtpcu at/>ff'1.,u,.. included the assembly's meeting days-quite the contrary. Two passages in the orators do in fact substantiate the assumption that the forty days reserved for meetings of the assembly were meeting days of the council as well.

,.,o-,~.

(8) In the sp~ech Against Timarclms .\eschines relates an event which took place in the archonship of ~icophemus (361 /360). Timarchus was a member of the council that year; and, during a meeting of the assembly, he was charged with embezzlement and prostitution by Pamphilus of Acherdus, who proposed and carried a decree that the people at the end of the year bestow the usual honors on the council only if the councillors forthwith excluded and punished Timarchus. After the ecdesia, when the councillors returned to the bouleutuion, Tim arch us was first excluded by the l.1C(f;;uX'Aoq,op£a., but this preliminary condemnation was reversed in the subsequent vote taken by ballot. The change of scene from the ecdesia to the bo,,leuteriMI is described by Aeschi• i fJov>..11 f.tf -rofJ01iA1.-uTl,p,o,1 ••• (Aeschin. 1. nes as follows: JAET4 TauTa, wr l1ra.1,1ij>Jlu, l 12). The phrase implies that the councillors went from the Pnyx to the bouleuterion, and th1t the meeting of the council was held on the same day as the tcclesia. (9) In 19. 70 Demosthenes refers to the curse proclaimed in the assembly against corrupt and treacherous politicians. He has the text read out to the jurorst whereupon he makes C:.la,&per'At'hf,..a,&, «al' i«Ao-n,v ni• l,c,c:'A.11tr£a,. the following comment: Tav9' intip i,p;;,.,, ~ ,cijpllf fVXf.'TCU. IIOIA'flrp00'1'U·a-yµe•4, ,ca.l,Mtll' " tfou'A.i.:a8-ijra.,, 1ta.p' '"UVfl ra"-ui. The crucial word is ru'A.u,, hy which Demosthenes stresses that the curse was, in some way or an::>ther, proclaimed twke. We miss the point if we take the passage to mean no more th1n th1t the curse wis read out both to the people and to the councillors. What Demosthenes says rather is that, on a meeting day of the ecclesia,the curse was proclaimed first in the assembly and then, again, in the council.

Comparing passages (8) and (9) with Aristotle's statement (Ath. Pol. 43. 3), I conclude that the councillors were regularly summoned on the meeting days of the ecclesiaand that the hours left after the ecclesiawas concluded were sufficient for a session of the council. The council probably met not only after~ but also before, a meeting of the assembly. It is a well-known fact that the nine proedroi were picked by lot from among the 450 bouleutai who did not serve as p,ytaneis, one from each of the remaining phylai. The proedroi must have been chosen before the opening of the ecdesia, and the sortition must have been conducted in the presence of the councillors. So the proe.droiwere appointed during a meeting of the council held either 2. Cf. J. D. Mikalson, "'H,-cepo.a1roq,plu/' AJP 96 (1975): 26-27.

134

nIE DURATION OF A MEETING

47

early in the morning immediately before the ecdesia or late in the afternoon of the preceding day. Xo direct information allows us to make a choice between these two possibilities, but some circumstantial evidence can be produced. A study of the Athenian calendar seems to lend support to the view that the proedroi were appointed late in the afternoon of the preceding day. The Athenians reckoned the t)pya (in the sense of a twenty-four-hour period) from sunset to sunset-not from sunrise to sunrise, as the Egyptians did, or from midnight to midnightt as we do (E. Bickennan, Chro,iologyof tJ,e A11cie11t 1Vorld [London, 1968}, pp. 13-14; 0. Neugebauer, A History of A11cie11t Matl,emd Pryt. 8-2. Both these investigations indicate that the tccltJia passed many more decrees during the summer than during the winter. I admit, however, that the di~tribution within the two periods is remarkably uneven. Pryt. 8 (rouahly equal to Elaphebolion) and Pryt. 10 (roughly equal to Skirophorion) are the two busiest periods; I have found very few examples from Pryt. I (roughly equal to Heka· tombaion). S. Bickennan, Chro,u,lo1y, p. 13. without reference to any source. I am not able to produce evidence concerning the classical period, but I do not doubt that some imp:ntant sources for Italy t Palestine, and Egypt in the Roman period can be applied to fourth-century Athens. (a) In Egyptian apprenticeship contracts, it is regularly stated that the working day extends from sunrise to sunset: 6.ro uu-ro>dh ,}>.lovµ4XPL1"'7twl BGU, 4. 1021. 13; PO~y. 725. 12~ 1647. 20. {b) In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20)t the last group is hired during the eleventh hour and works for one hour only. The hour of the ancients was one~twelfth of the day from sunrise to sunset (Kubitschek, Gn.ftdm,. p. 182), and so the working day must have been coextensive with the daylight houn. (e) Columella R,ut. 11. l. 17-18.

136

THE DURATION OF A MEETING

49

this theory there is no longer any foundation for the assumption made by several historians that the ,udor u"A.,uaa-Tu:6r only compensated the Athenian citizens in some measure for loss of working time,• and we can reject the view that the poorer citizens even in the fourth century may have been debarred from attending the eccle.sia.On the other hand, assuming that an ~ccksi.i,usuaHy did not fill more than part of the day enables us to give a simple explanation of the higher rate for an ht:«A'fO',a. cvpla.. It is apparent from the Constitutu,,1of At/1~,u (43. 3-6) that there were more items on the agenda for an mA'IO'l« cupl« than for other meetings of the assembly. Such a meeting was probably more time--consuming, and conse• quently the subvention paid for attendance had to be raised in order to provide full compensation for the working hours lost. The thesis suggested in this article is based on a study of the scanty sources. I conclude my argument by anticipating an a priori objection which will doubtless be raised against my reconstruction: that it is impossible for six thousand participants, all of whom have the right to speak, to discuss and vote on a dozen decrees within a few hours. My answer is that it is possible: it happens in Switzerland today. In a few of the smaller cantons, magistrates are still elected and laws are still pused by the ·Landsgnneinde,which in Giants, for example, is attended by about five thousand citizens who vote on all proposals by a show of hands. Every citizen is entitled to address the assembly. and the number of items on the agenda is comparable to the description found in the Constitution of At~ns (43. 3-6). Nevertheless, such meetings last for no more than two to four hours. 1

6. G. Glotz and R. Cohen. Huloil'e pu.q,u, vol. J (Paris. 1936). p. 16; P. Clochi, La UMOUolN ol"'1ciea,ee(Paris, 1951). p. 210; V. Ehrenbera, T"' G,ul, Stale (Oxford, 1960), p. 55; C. MossE, Lu ttulillflu,,u ,o-lilif11u p«qw1 (Paris, 1967), p. 46; De Laix, Probt,tdnsis, p. 176. Cautiously stated by A. H. M. Jones, Atie,ria• Dem«rac1 (Oxford. 1957)t p. 18. 7. W. Stauffacher, Dk Vetsa•-'•",sdet110lrati, i,, KaNlo• Glaru (Zurich. 1962), pp. 284-85; H. Ryffelt Die Sdn«iarisel,e,. La"4sge1Wi,su•(Zurich. 1903), pp. 80-l09t 270-J24. For valuable discus.sions of various problems I should Uke to thank Dr. A. Billow-Jacobsen, Prof. J. Christensen. Mr. J. A. Crook. Mr. G. T. Griffith. Dr. C. M. Taisbak.,and the anonymous referees of Cla.ssitol Pluloloa.

137

ADDENDA 132: In AC 50 (1981) 393-97 J.M. Hannick argues against my view (The Sovereignty 51) that Euctemon's proposal was indicted as unconstitutional before it had been passed. I will return to the problem in future but take this opportunity to bring the following comments: (a) The phrases Td."fVW08eixJ· tmd ... rou~µau (9) and Td r}µ.eTepo11 &r,µa (117) probably refer to the probouleuma which was passed in the procheirotonia ( 11, cf .. supra pages 1l} {b,)f, in 11) 126-27). (b) Euctemon was not a councillor ( cf. 1rpouq>JJe and so he cannot have been the proposer of the probouleuma. (c) The word v,,W,Wµa. in 14: "TPt!uf>ovrcu TO1/J,j(/,wµ.a, and in 101: l}Jfl(/>wµa EvKniJlOIJO( does not prove, pace Han.nick, that the people had paued Euctemon's proposal, cf. e.g. Aeschin. 2.64-68 where psephisma is used about a proposal drawn up in writing but never handed over to the proedroi and never put to the vote ..

ro

ro

134: Andocides provides us, in his speech On the Mysteries, with another example of an ecclesiafollowed by a meeting of the boule. In 415 Teucrus denounced eighteen persons for mutilation of the Hermai and profanation of the mysteries. As soon as the assembly was over, the herald ordered the councillors to go to the bouleuterionand took down the sign (indicating that a session of the ecclesiawas being held), Andoc. 136. The passage, however, describes emergency meetings, whereas Aeschines in the Timarchus speech seems to describe the regular procedure. 135: Cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 44.l: "One epistates ton prytaneon is selected by lot. He presides .one night and one day". In my opinion, the word order IIVKTal«li flµepcw proves that the epistates was appointed at sunset and not at dawn. 135: Rather than assuming that two different boards of arc~ were both entrusted with the checking of admission to the ecclesia,l am now inclined to believe that the board of six lexiarchoi was replaced, perhaps in 403/2, with the board of thirty syllogeis..Cf .. M.H. Hansen, 'Seven Hundred Archai in Oassical Athens,' GRBS 21 (1980) 162 with note 29. 136: For 1talf a day's wages' read: 'half a day's work'. I do not believe that the ecclesiawas dominated by wage-earners. Cf. sup,rzline 13. 136: I believe that Schaefer, Demosthenes112 229, is right in assuming that a meeting of the boule took place after the ecclesiaheld on 18 Elaph.: ,'Die Verhandlung des nachsten Tages begann mit einem Bericht des Demosthenes iiber die ablehnende Erklarung welche die gesandten vermutlich inzwischen vor dem Rate abgegeben batten."

138

Demos,Ecc/esiaand Dicasterion in Oassical Athens I

T

HB PURPOSE

of this paper is to challenge a widely held opinion

about the relationship between the ecclesiaand the dicasterion in classicalAthens. The traditional view, which is endorsed by e.g.G. Glotz, A. W. Gomme. V. Ehrenberg, E. Meyer, B. Will, P. J. Rhodes and M. I. Finley, 1 can be summed up in the following five statements: (1) In Athens sovereignty belonged to the demos.(2) The dan.osexercized its powers directly in the ecclesia.(3) So the ecclesia was the sovereign body of government in classicalAthens. (4) The sovereignty of the ecclesui,however, was in practice considerably limited by the dicasterion.Most of the judicial power was invested in the people's court, and a decree passed by the ecclesia. could be chal· lenged through a ypcu/rqffap«VOfUIJV and rescinded by a dicasterion. (5) The theory of the sovereignty of the ecclesia,however, is not im• paired by this apparent separation of powers between the ecclesiaand the dicasterion,since the demoswas identical not only with the ecclesia but also with the dicasterion.The peopJe·s court was in fact the demos sitting in judgement. The inference to be made from {5) ought to be that sovereignty rested with the demosand was embodied both in the ecclesiaand in the dicasterion.But the conclusion usually drawn is that since the dicasterionwas manned by the dttnosand since the demoswas identical with the ecclesia.there is no opposition between the sovereignty of the assembly and the judicial powers exercized by the people's court. The G. Glotz, Tht Grttk City (London 1929) 162, 166, 2.S0.A. W. Gomme, ..The Working of the Athenian fkmocracf" in Morr Esstiys in Grttli: History and Litaature (Oxford 1962) 188. V. Ehrenberg, T1ttGrttk ~ (Orlord 1960) SZ-Sl, S7-S8. B. Meyer, EinftU1ni11g in dk antih Staulnmdt (Darmstadt 1968) 88, 96. E. Will, Le mont.k,,.« et f orifflr,.Paq,lu et dvili.wtiolu D.l (Paris 1972) 4S6-S8. P. J. Rhodes, 7lteAtlstnidn &nut (Oxford 1972) 198. M. I. Finley, Dtm«raty Aftdtftt and Modtm (London 1973) 18. U-27. The identification of the dtmos both with the «d.uia and with the dica.stmonis made also by Ph. Gauthier in Un co,nment.a:irr •utoriqw da PDroide Xlnoplao,a (Paris 1976) 24 and 29-30. 1

139

12.8

DEMOS, ECCLESIA AND DJCASTERION

dica.sterionis either identified with the ecclesiaor brushed away as a committee of the ecclesiawith an authority held only by delegation from the demos= the ecclesia. This theory of the relationship between the assembly and the people's court is based on the clSSUmption that the dmios was embodied both in the ecclesiaand in the dicasterion,but in my opinion this assumption is not only unfounded but even contradicted by the evidence. An inspection of all the sources seems rather to substantiate the following four statements: (1) The demosis frequently identified with the ecclesia.(2) The demosis never identified with the dicasterion. (3) The demos( =the ecclesia) is often opposed to the dicasterion.(4) Like the Council of Five Hundred the dicasterionis a democratic body of government which cannot, however, be identified with the demos. My review of the sources is divided into two parts, of which the first comprises the inscriptions ~nd the speeches and the second the poets, the philosophers and the historians. Whereas the inscriptions and the speeches held in the ecclesiaor before the dicasterionprovide us with direct information about the constitutional meaning and use of the word demos,the remaining literary evidence at most reflects or discusses this usage, and for this reason the speeches must be grouped with the epigraphical evidence and separated from the secondary evidence which can be discussed under one heading.

II In the decrees preserved on stone it is abundantly attested that demoswhen referring to a body of government invariably denotes the ecclesiaand never the dica.sterion. It is sufficient to mention that a deci• sion made by the assembly is introduced with the enactment-formula l8of ~ Tt;, 8~µ.cpor l3of E Tjj f3ov'AjjKai -re;, 8,jµ.q,1 and that one of the honours frequently bestowed on foreigners is .,,.poco&c 1tpoc Tql' 1 Only one inscription has been f3ov'A~v1eal-rov &;jp,o11 ( ==the ecclesia). adduced in suppon of the identification of the demoswith the dicasterion as well as with the ecclesia,vi.(. IG P 114.37: «vEv -r6 8,jµ,o -ro }t8o,alov fflE]BJ°oVToc p,i lva, 8cw[a}ro[v, which is interpreted as follows by Rhodes:' the right to pass the death sentence is reserved for the •Rhodes.op.at.(.svpran.1) 64ft'. • Rhoda, op.dt.(svpra n.1) 43. • op.dt.(supna n.1) 169 n.J. 197-200.

140

•

DEMOS, ECCLES/A AND DICASTERION

129

entire donas.Since we know that the Heliaiawas empowered to inflict capital punishment, the conclusion is that the Heliaiais representative of the entire donas. This conclusion is weakened, however, by the fact that in the fifth and the fourth centuries the council of the Areopagus, which in no circumstances can be identified with the dmtos, passed innumerable sentences of death. SinceIG P 114 deals with the powers of the Council of Five Hundred, the correct interpretation is probably that the covncil must not pass any sentence of death without the approval of the people. In that case the &ijp.oc,,>-,'18°"'" only denotes the assembly, not the assembly and the court ..6 The documents transmitted to us, however, contain only casual references to the dicasterion,and so it is impossible on the basis of the epigraphical evidence to disprove the assumption that dmtos may designate the dicasterionas well as the eccltsia.To elucidate the meaning of the word dmtos we must tum to the speeches• and examine which body of government an orator may have in mind when he refers to the dmtos in a speech delivered either in the assembly or before the people-'scourt. In the preserved speeches (covering the period ea 420 to ea 320 a.c.) dmtos occurs some six hundred times' and in so many differcnt contexts that irs range of meaning can be sufficiently determined. The word frequently denotes the whole of the people - all Athenian citizens,• whereas we have hardly anyexample of dmtosdenoting the M. H. Hansen, Eisagdia. Tit Sow:uigntyof dtt Ptopk~sCourt in Atlrtns in W FOMrti Cntury B.c. and die lmpmdtfflffltof Generalsand PolitidAns(Odense 1975) SZ. Idan, '"'How Many Athenians Attended the .Ecdtsiat"GRBS17 (1976) 122; I should like to point out that the words ••,oa Rhodes in n.41 must not be taken to mean that Rhodes believes in plenary assemblies. We disagree only about the relationship between the tcdai4 and the diautmon, not about the types of meeting of the «tluia. 1 By Ant., Andoc., Lys., Isoc., Isae.• Dem.t Aeschin.tHyp., Lycurg. and Din.t plus genuine forensic speeches wrongly attributed to one of these onton (t-1., Apollodorus• speeches in the Ccnp111 ~). I exclude Andoc. 4 AgdilUt Alcibiadtsand Lys. IS Against AkibilUlu. Andoc. 4 is probably a literary acrdse written much later, and the authenticity of Lys. IS has frequcndy been questioned. On the other hand I include Dern. 13and 25. I have dassifi.cd.lsocrates with the oraton and not with the philosophers. Of the relevant speeche, 16 (On die IJi&a) and 18 (Agabui Callimaclnu)are genuine counroom spccches.7 (Auopa&Uinu) and 8 (On.dtt Peaa) pretend to be dnnrgorw and IS (Afllido.sis)to be delivered before the juron (if. 15.13). ' I do not discuss dlfflos·in the sense 'deme·. and I omit a couple of passageswhere datos refen to the people of a state other than Athens. • Ant. J.70; Andoc. 1.36. 98; 2.16: 3.1, 7, 33: Lys. 13.JI, 91: 18.S, 11; 20.17, 25.11; 26.4, 20; 31.19; lsoc. 7.63: 8.7J, 121, 125; 10.36; 12.139, 1411 147; lS.232; 16.20., 26. 41, 46; 18.62; Bp. Z.IS; lsae. S.38; Dean. 3.30, IS.ll: 18.57, 112,130,278; 19.8-.136. 300; 20.2, J, 12, 36, J9, 42, 44, 1

0

141

130

DEMOS, ECCLES/A AND DICASTERION

common people in opposition to the upper and middle classes.• This meaning of dmtos, so prominent in philosophy (see infra p.139), is almost unattested in the speeches. When discussingconstitutional matters an orator may use titmo.ssynonymously with democratia, 10 and similarly, in descriptions of the civil wars in 411-403, he can speak of dmtos meaning 'the democrats'. 11 A further use of demoscan be found in the phrased 8fjµ,ocd }tfqvalwv, where the reference is to the (democratic) Athenian state, in opposition to e.g. Lacedaimon or Thebes.11 In about half of the six hundred instances, however, dmtos means 'the people in assembly' or 'the assembly' itself.11 The phrase Jv T'f' 1• and 3-ql"f'is invariably used synonymously with b, -rfj J,c,cl-,,ct,, S7, 96. 103, 106, 107, 109, Ill, Ill, 124, 133, 13S, 149, JSO; 21.69. 143, 22.7;22.12$,16, 76; 23.2.J, 209; 2A•.U. no. 111, 119, 131; ll.32, 40, 66; 26.6, 14. 21; 34.38. 39: 46.15, JO.SI, SS.63; 59.13, 76, 89, 92, 93, UM; Prooim.S3.4, JJ.l; Ep. J.1; 3.2. 3, 4, IS, 23, 27, 31, 34; Acschin. 1.112; 2.36, 46, 76. 138, 174, 176, 177; 3.47. SO, JS" 61, 7J, 81, 101, 120" 1J4, 166,, 169, 170. 172, 182, 189. 221, 230. 231, 237, 2J4 11 258; Hyp. 1.8,. 13, 21, 30; 4.3, 611 7 11 10; 6.27, 39; Lycurg. I.Z,.39, 42.,.43, 4S, 112. 116. 120, 123, 14J; Din. 1.8., 9, 17, 33, 37, 54. 70, 11. 93. 94, '.11.99, 100, 101, 102., 101. 112; 2.17, 25. 1 hoe. 7.U,. 27:Acschin. 1.141. 11 AndOC". 3.12; Lys. 6.30; lsoc. 12.1-48"lS.70 11 16.36: Dem. lS.19, 19.314" 20.108; 21.144, 14J: Lycurg. 1.121. 12A, ISO; 3-qpo,,,«.-rcUuc1e n>u B,j1£Gu:Andoc. 1.36, 101; 3.4., 6, 10, 12; Lys. 13.17, 20, JI: 16.S. 20.13; 30.9, 12. 14. lJ, JO: lsoc. 7.S8. 12.148; 16.16 1 37; Oem. 13.14. IS.14: 19.17.S, 294; 12.32; 14.146, lSZ, l.S4. 206; Sl.34; Prooim. 42.1; Acschin. 1.173. 191; Z.174.177; 3.191, 234., llJ; Hyp. 2.12; 3.7. 8: Lycurg. 1.IZS,126,147; Din. 1.76, 94. Frequendy it is impossible to draw a clear line between the meaning "people·and the meaning"democ•

.-ctruvcw -r.,

racf. Accordingly,.some of the references in n.8 might be placed in this note as well and vfawrso. 11 Lys. 26.16, 34.S; Isoc.18.49; Dem.19.277, 280: 20.48,68; 2.4.135, SS.67; Aeschin.Z.78, 147, 176; 3.181, 187" 190, 191, 208; Din. 1.2'. Referring to the democrats who ovenhrew the tyranny in the sixth century: Andoc. 1.106, 1.26; Isoc. 7.16, lS.232. 16.1.6. 11 Andoc. 3.2. J, 7; Lys. 13.16, st. 60, 75, 84: lsoc. 14.lS; Dern. 9.42, 18.72; 19.49, 271: 22.12, 24.180, S0.4S; 59.92, 10S; Ep. 3.11; Aesch.in. 2.60, 73; 3.46, G, 49, 90. 116. 117. lSS, 156,

UJ9.. 258; Hyp. 3.20. JJ.

It is oftm difficult to decide whether dmtos means ·the people· or ·1he assembly-. About 300cumples is a low estimate since I have excluded all doubtful instances. 'Honoun bestowed by the people· (Bwpcol,,_,. 'f'Ov 3,j,-v). for example, must refer to honorary decrees passedby the «dma. but I have included only those passages where the «daia is mentioned or referred to in the contat. Similarly the phrase 3tJl'O'V •poc-ro:"f' is only interpreted as a politician addressing the assembly if there is no doubt that the speaker has the t.cdaill in mind. 11

H

Andoc. 1.11$,14, 7J; Lys. 13.32, 16.20, 21.21. 29.12, fr.6.81 (GemetfBizos); Isoc. IS.314,

lsae. 5.37, 11.48; Dern. 7.18, 22; 18.141; 19.-10. 114. llS, 2.34, ZS7, 292; 21.16., 18, 68, W: 22.10.

,a.28,

S9, 61; 23.172; 24.80, 134: 3-4.SO;49.10., ll, 66, 67; Jo.,.6; 4S, 62; J9.27: Acschin. 1.101 27, 28., 64, 80; Z.17, 25., 47, 90; 3.34, JS, 150; Hyp. 1.10, 2A, 31; 2.3; Lycurg. 1.19, 117; Din. 1.8, 86, 89. 104; 2.11, 16, 17; 3.1.

142

131

DEMOS, ECCLES/A AND DICASTERION

dmtos is frequently found as the subject of verbs such as XE,poTovEiv, ,f,,rl>l,Ec8a,, td.pEic8a,etc. 11 A decree of the assembly is called 871µ,ou 11 and in several instances a distinction is made between the t/rl,t/>Kp,a, dmtos and the bovle.17 It is the dmtos that issues orders, bestows

honours, listens to reports, debates on war and peace and sometimes passes a sentence on a politician without referring the case to a

dicasttnon..1• Whereas dmtos in the sense eccltsiais abundantly attested, I have found only three passages where the word demos is applied to the dicastaimanning the people's court: Aeschin. 1.141: muB,} a, JlxlMlwc Kai llaTptjKNJV ,J,,,,,,,,,cs~"'" ·ol-',;pov K"al bJpwv ffO'']TWI', we TWVµa 8,Kac-rwvJywv ; /Jov>..;v ;J&;;µ.ov ;;

~.,~.

Dem. 24.9: ... allcl ffpGrrovµwnjc PouAijc,c-a:-reyvw,cvlac, cf-ra -roD 1J: , , , !'\ u-1111-"'Vl'lml "I/UfKD' Ol\'l}V ~---

1'0K u.A'"-"'

•

~

,

I

...

~---

\ _,_ ~

'

I!' l

,

1tpococ TOVI ~---.. • • \ \!_ ,J,J~ • .,,,. I I 'IP""" ovo&-v CIC cva:,cc:u. X""°VC -.,,-11,.,,-.p.owv • •• l'f'f .i 'l"""P""I' c,r,

TOll'TO&C

avroK

GVtlMUCCCVTOC,

~

11

Andoc. 3 (391); Lys. 28 (389); Dem. 14(lJ4/3): Oem.13(353/Z); Dem.16(3J3/Z); Dem. 4 (3J2/I); Dem. IS (351/0); Dem. 1-3 (349/8); Dern. J (346/S); Dem. 6 (344/3); Dem. 7 (343/2): Dem. 8 (342/1): Dern. 9 (341/1); Dem. 10 (342./1): Dern. 17 (331). • e.g.,Dem. 13.16., 2.4.2; Acschin. 3.6; Din. 3.16, etc. • 1 di Wpcc Jll,p,aio,t.g. Dem.18.1, 19.1, 20.1.,21.2. 22.4.13.1. 24.6, 15.8. 26.1. u,uic ol wollol t.g. 0cm.. 2.4.37, 19]. • • • l,pi,iwtrdl.c« flJMKCIUflJCi ICtff'fWJO"JCO IJem. 43.72. II IJl'CKd 3ij,.oct.g. Dem. 3.31; Bp. 3.30.

144

133

DEMOS, ECCLES/A AND DICASTERJON ••. &.cupa•.• TCly,,wc8Mf 1ffl'O rijc /JovAijc.-ul -roO3,j,u,v «al TOV 8'.l«Kfflp&OV ,ca,/JKfflC,11, ...

Dem. 24.S0: NOMOE. l«v 3' TK uc,-rvJn lv rfi /3011Aff .;;b Tij, 3,jJ.UfJ 71'Ep1 ~ Burcxcnjpwv Tj,} /3ovli i d &;;,,,«,ca-rlyvw. . . Dern. 24.99: «cx1 trcuc OUMH-dv,El&a -,d., vdµo11,8v CV.,.,,,,'"" p,K80V Aa/M,11,, dp;,clJocd 3-ijµoc"'" ,j flovA:q,cal Td:8,,cacnjpi•lcnu; Dern. 2S.20: Elydp T&C jp,Gw lfcnl.cex& {JoJAcnu.,.,m:w· fCTl1"0arno., Kai To ff'O&OW n}v /Joul11"cv>J..~c8m, TOIi &ijµ.o•Elc n)11f1t«A71cla. ,h,u/Juu,c1a,, ~ &Kacnjp&a .,,A.,,po6c8ai ••.

Dern. S7.S6: l,pw ydp, cZ&,,apccXS,M1iol,od µm,o., TC&W ~u...L.

fA \

~

_!

,

...

,

..

•

IL

'

I

--'..\ \

,-.c.,wv L'lM/J,OVCu»VCl'-IJVICUfJ"OT•p OVTU TCI OIICUCffJpt(I, 0-. \ ... ,-,vVA'q
Jou ut,&cm,c, ci.,U•cW«wc c;&Bpam&Bol""(W b,u,,.,.ul,,u,,oc, ola 87),/H).otic,v • Elc8utacnfpaa&ycuv~"D ... Arist. Atl1.Pol. 9.1: .,.pl-rtJ11 81, ("1) ~c-rd .\.:A ffA,l"OC•

• «K• 11

~ ' TO' OUCtieffJpu>V

•J...., ' €V""=CK" ,wpu,c

' yap

f/,ac,v lcxu1tlv«i .,.d • '"' .I..LL-. CUI' 0• ~ u,,µ.ocflJC ,,-,r,,vU

ltVp&OC y/)"'ff'C:U njc ffOAiTc/ac. Arisr~ .Atlt.Pol.41.2: Cffl'av1"WJI )'Up ,

,

I

It

,..

...

,ra:,'

ICVf"OV, ICCU fl'CXVTU o'°UC€&TU& 1= , eCT,v _J 1111/J,OC Oi

KptlT'WJI.

/_,I.

«woeWTOI'

I

ff'ffrOl"JKO

,,,,.,,KJJ,UtiV 0

' yap

... a&f "JC

I

,ea,

R-

1

OIIC'UCffJfJ'OIC,

d &qp,oc _l. -

D'

0

K

t

0

"\ ... , t ' ~ ,-,vVt17]C ,rp&C€K U.C TOI" v,,p,oa,

Jl71Atf8uc,.,.11 To conclude from these passages that the Athenians identified danosboth with ecclesiaand with dicasterionwould in my opinion be a misinterpretation of the sources. First, the philosophers object to democracy by maintaining that the democratic institutions are dominated by the demos::sol&1ropo,,but when they speak of the demos as an institution they have invariably the eccltsiain mind. Secondtthese passages illustrate only the philosophers' criticism of democracy and cannot be adduced as evidence for the democrats' own view of their institutions, which is reflected in the documents and in the speeches.. (c) Since the historians take more interest in politics than in constitutional matters, passages elucidating the meaning of dernosare not frequent, but so far as the evidence goes the conclusions stated above are supported by Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon's historical writings. When dem.osdenotes an institution, the reference is always 11 and we have at least three instances of demosbeing to the eccltsia. opposed to dicasterion,one in Herodotus' account of the trial of Miltiades in 493, one in Thucydides• portrait of Antiphon and one in Xenophon's description of the. trial of the generals in 406.

,le .,.d,., 3,jµ.o•means •to the «cltJia', if. IG 11 114 and supra p.129. 11 Hdt. l.S9.4-J, S.97.1, 6.136.1 7.142.1, 9.S.1; Thuc. 4.46.2; 4.118.11, 14; S.4J.l-4; 6.60.1, 4: 8.53.1; 8.54.1, 3; 8.66.1, 8.67.1, 8.68.1; Xen. Htll. 1.7.3, 4, 11, 12, 26. 11

1

152

DEMOS, ECCLES/A AND DICASTERION

141

~ ~

KUl TOIH'ouc CTptn"f/YOC oil-re« Xlh,wJwv d,,•Blxlh,, alp.Ihle no 1'0V8,jpou.

Thuc. 8. 68. I : }f,,,,.&tf,Gw +,. . .TOak• • •~,Copbov< ,calJ.,3ucac-rTJi»'f' '"" b 3,JJUIJ ffM"iCTCI.recwtfp, OC:TIC cvp,/Jovl,ucw.-ro .,.,, ~ ~iv.

Xen. HtU. 1..7.12: Td.. Bi KaMlfaov "pocuc«Alcavro ~pa~CKoVTt'C cvyyqpa,/,lwu Evpwrro>-..-p.&c Tf o llfK&avr.ncTOC,cal &Mo, T'&WC. T'OV ii &,jµ.ovlno, n1Gra htfvow, T'O trA:ij8oc JfJ&u&wov Efl'CX& ,l 1''1 'r&e l&c,, .,.,;., Bijµ.ov1rpd:r-n,v 8 &., flo.JA"lf"CU ..

a,

The usage in Herodotus and Thucydides needs no further comment, but the passage in Xenophon is crucial: when Euryptolemus and others venture to lodge a rnrwp,oclaagainst Callixenus' 1rpo/Jov>..Evµ,a, their opponents counter with the argument that it would be outrageous to prevent the demosfrom doing whatever they wished. So an appeal from the ecclesiato the dicast.erionis regarded as an attack on the sovereignty of the demos.The argument does not make sense if we assume that the dictUterionwas the demossitting in judgement. We must conclude that the Athenians identified the demosmeaning jfthc Athenian people' with the ecclesiabut not with the dicasterion..

IV So far I have discussed the relationship between the ecclesiaand the dicasterionin the period ea 420-ca 320, for which we possess direct evidence. But the dicasterionwas introduced by Solon, and I will round off the argument with an account of dmtos, ecclesiaand dicasterion from the beginning of the sixth to the end of the fifth century. It is commonly argued, most recently by Rhodes, 11 that the Solonian Heliaiawas identical with the ecclesiaand that a session of this court of appeal was a meeting of the entire people acting as jurors. The Heliaia (==the ecclesia)was divided into dicasteria only after Ephialces• reform, and, according to Rhodes, Cleinias• tribute decree of 447 (?) contains the last (restored) occurrence of the word Heliaiain its original sense. 1' I objected to this reconstruaion by referring to In my Eisangelia Arist. Pol.. 1274a: ,cvp,oa, 110,,jca11Ta(Solon) TO 8,11'ff"EVTCIICOC&Wi,,,

and similarly an orator alwaysusesthe phrase ol vop,o, 1eal,-cit/n}tf>lcµ.a,ra when he wishes to refer to the whole body of rules binding on the Athenians. Demosthenes, for example, states in the speech Against Timocratt.s152: 71yapffOAK,jµwv, cLd118pEc8,1eucTal,vop,oK ,cal t/rrJtf,kµac,v 8&0,1eeiTCX,. and a few other quotations from the orators may serve as illustrations of this common praaice: ,,,,l,(f o&roc,j 8u~t/nJtf,lcp,tn'oc 1' I I I IJ I I (Din • 1•96) ; T&.I yap \ "I VOl£0V EffTIVWpr,UICE TO ,11"ff'&KOI' j " "" y,.-r,&C./Uff"I .t-.1..' ' VOp.GVC ' L. ' cn,,-'I" IC1/ voµov µ.~ J,nnj8E,0J18Eiva, against Timocrates nomos,which he preferred to do. Summing up: since the Athenians had two forms of indictment against unconstitutional proposals, there must have been a difference between them. The only demonstrable difference is that the ypa'r/ vop.ov µ71 J,n.,..,,8€,ov8Ei11a, was reserved for indictments against nomoi, whereas the ypatf,1, ,,,.apavoµws, could be employed only against pstphismata.On the other hand, a ypat/rr,1rapav6µ,wvcould be brought against any pstphisma and not only-as usually assumed-against a psephismawhich was 1rap&voµ.oi,either in form (by some infringement of the procedure) or in content (by being in conflict with some specific 1

nomos).61

IV The examination of the formal differences between nomos and pstphisma in fourth-century Athens has led to the following conclusions: in 403/2 or shortly afterwards a distinction between nomos Dcm. 3.10-13, 24.20-23; Aeschin. 3.38-39. Dcm. 24.27. Cf. Hansen, op.de. (supra n.49) 154-57. H De ...LI. ""' ~ 8nva, - voµ.ov u,.u,,,, ~ .U.J. m. 24.30 y~cu ,caTa ,,.,,,,ccµ«. o.. ""' «VTo 1'apa 1'ouc voµovc ~ lp,,µJn11§Sn. 11 C/. Hansen, op.di..(SMJ'l'4 n.24) 14.Sn.40. 11 0

I

•

'

175

1

•

'

'

\

,

330

NOMOS - PSEPHISMA IN FOUR1H-CENTIJRY ATIIENS

and psq,hisma.was instituted, and henceforth no enactment of the Athenians was both a nomosand a pstphisma.~ Psqhimuat4 were passed by the danos in the eccluia.,nomoi by the nomothttai.There is no example of a nomospassed by the danos or of a pstplu.smapassed by the nomothetai.Nomoisupersededpstpltism4taand psepltism4ta must accord with the nomoi in force. The distinction between nomoi and psq,ltismata was reflected in the administration of justic~ The ypa,,/Yq 1'upa.vo,u,,vwas reformed and a new type of public action was introduced. After the reform the yp"""" ff'apavop,wv applied only to psq,ltism4ta, whereas an unconstitutional nomos had to be indicted through a ypa,tfyqvop,ov1£71 Cfl",njHM>JI 8et,,a,.18 UNIVBIISIIT

OP COPBNHAGBN

Aitgaut, 1978

HI should like to thank Professor J. Christensen and Or P. J. Rhodes for reading and commenting on a draft of this anicle and Mr A. G. Woodhead for his kind advice and assistance u regards the epigraphical evidence. Furthermore, I should like to cxpreas my gratitude to &4U1U Hvlfl4ffi.stisJrt PorsbingSTAd for defraying the costs of a visit to Cambridge.

176

ADDENDA 164: In the Agora excavations a seventh law, inscribed on stone, has been discovered. It was pas.,ed by the nomothetai in the archonship of Diotimos

(3 54/3) and concerns the financing of a festival. 164: Published in CIMed32 (1971.SO) 87..104. 166: In Ath. S77 B the enactment is called a nomos and ascribed to Aristophon. In Schol. Aeschin. 1.39 it is called a psephisma and ascribed to a certain Nicomenes.Both sources are late and, accordingly,the terminologyused cannot be trusted cf. supn, n. 1S. 170: In Studi in onore di Amoldo Biscardi (Milano 1981) 357-68 I. Calabi Umentani reconstructs the legislative procedures described in the Leptines speech on the assumption that Leptines' law had not yet been passed by the nomothetai when the dicasterionheard the action against the law and

Demosthenes delivered his speech. I have the following objections: (a) If Leptines' law wu still pendingand not yet ratified by the nomothetai, Leptines would certainly have been responsible for his proposal. It is apparent, however, from Dern. 20.144 that Leptines could no longer be held responsible for his law. (b) We know that a decree which had not been ratified lapsed after a year (Dem. 23.92). The same rule probably applied to a nomos. If Leptines' law had been a proposal it would have lapsed before the trial

which took place more than a year after Leptinesmovedhis bill.

177

Did the Athenian Ecclesia Legislate after 4-03/2 B.c.?

N AN EARLIER ABTICLE 1

I argued that nomoiwere passed by the nomothetai, that nomoisu pcrseded ps,phismata and that the yprz4w, vop,oa,l':q cfl',nj&wv 8Ewa,,was introduced as a special type of public action against unconstitutional nom.oi,whereas the yf"%4w, wapm,61'-"'" henceforth could be brought only against psephismata. But these distinctions arc purely formal. I shall now tum to the crucial question: was there any difference in substance between nomoiand psephismata? and if so, was the distinction respected by the Athenians? 2 As is well known the essential diff crence between nomoi and ;s,phismatais reflected in Greek legal thought and expressed by the * philosophen.

I

AlusT. EIA..Nic.1137bl3-14 and 27-29: ... d µJ11110µ,oc ,ccJJ&Aov ,r&c, ff'Epl lvlwv otlxold• Tf op8wc rcuBoAou. 27-29: TOVTOYtlf' at.,-,011 Kai -roO1'-1/ l • __!~ , 8•c , 8a, 110µ,ov, , • ./-,J./ _ ff'QVTQ: lt«'t"U 110/J,OII ,f VCH, OTt, ffEf" o,wv aowa-rov WCTE ,,,,~p,a:roc

.z.,,..,v

a·

I

'

I

1

,.

,

&i. Ausr. Pol. l 292a4--7: ITe-pov8« e-l&c1nJµ.o1epa-rlac -r&.ua: µJv

1-tvtU T"UWtt,

' , ... ~! , • ' .J_,,Lf,,,. ,cvpu,va •""" ,-o, ,r11,,voc KOE8po, instructed to propose a supplementary appropriation to the effect that the mro&l,c.,-wshall transfer the amount to the Tap,la.c each and every year: b Sc -roicvo,ioBl-rai[c]T[o~c1rpol8p)ovcot &v 7rpo£8(HJwc,11 [Kai~ .. E1,,,.[,c)• TCfflJv ,rpocvoµo8Erij[ cw 'TOup )yvp,ov T[0]UTO,upl'E"' T[ovcu1ro8)f lCTUC TW, -rap.l,cu-roG8,fµ.[ov EKTo]va,uVTovl1tac-rov{41-46). The ratification by the nomothetaiis a general measure in so far as it results in a revision of the ., annual mnismosfor an unlimited period of time. On the other hand, it relates to a particular case since the money is to be paid out to a named person. 3. JG 112 330 is an honorary decree for Phyleus the upo,ro,oc who is awarded a golden crown worth 1000 dn. The Tap,la.cTOG&,jµ,ovis instructed to lay out the money, but in order that he can have the I 000 drs. refunded the 1rpoE8po& of the next session of the nomothetaiarc instructed to propose supplementary estimates: &1rwc 8' a., d 1'[«],Jac a,ro"dP[,, Toap)'Vp,ov 'TO 8 , • '] E"fY'IP,EIIOI' T OVC 1rpDEopoVC, 01 a.v l\aXWC& V TrpWTOV TrpoE 'J)EUEW EC.C TOV C '

,

]

\

,~

, ...[ ccu vop,o (JETUC 1rpoaoµ,o (JETTJ

tl

ff'EP'

'II

\

,

[

...

·1

2--- \ , • ' -rou ... ava11wµ,a-roc cnrwc u v '""

\ o,. aN\O& ~\\

o,.

1ea8&CT«J,&.E [vo, lEpo1rowi.~,\oT&J"Wll1"U], 'lrf'OCTE "1"'pov>..;v,cal TOV8(-ijµov t¥XE,v Kcn'U TOVCvoµov]c Kai e-lvcu x,nic&f'O& TW&6-,jµ.[w,TUN .MB-qvalwv] (18-23). The purpose of this act is to exhort future lt:P"ff°'ol to merit the gratitude of the people, but the act itself seems to have been no more than an individual decision to grant the -ra.plac Tov 8,jµ,ov a supplementary appropriation of 1000 drs. to be paid out only once. CJ. F. G. Maier, Gri«hisclwMawrbauins&ll'lifl,n I (Heidelberg 1959) 96--48. H Both in 395-91 and in 307/6 the decision to rebuild the walls took the form of a ps,pl,isma.CJ. Philoch. FG,Hist 328 P 40 and Maicr 1 op.eit.(supran.33) 21-36 (the rebuilding in 395--91); JG 111 463 and Maier 48--67 (the rebuilding in 307/6). 33

193

DID nfE ATIIENIAN ECCLESJA LEGISLATE?

42

4. Syll. 3 298 ( =IG VII 4254) is an honorary decree for a board of

epirneletai (whose names are recorded). Among the honoun bestowed is a -roii3,jµ.ov grant of I 00 dn. for a sacrifice and a votive offering. The .,.aµJ,«c is instructed to lay out the money to the sacrifice, but at the next session of arc instructed to propose a ratification of the the nomotlutai(the 11poEBpo,) expense: 8owm, ~ aoroi"c ,cul EK Bvclo.vICC:U av&lh,µa H 8paXJl,UC· TO ~ l] I /j__ I!,-~,. I t '"' apyvp,ov T O EK 1'1')1'UVC&.aJI wpoom,nca, 1"0V TUJl,l,ffl' 1"0V ..,,,p,ov' O' Oif\ TO&C 1rptf,,ro,cw,µ.o81Tmc,rpoa,oµ,ol)~ccu -run1"«1'[ l]cu (35--41). 35 The sum may seem ridiculously small, but nevertheless the aorist 8oV11«& in opposition to the present 8,8ova,in line 44 indicates that the nomolAetai arc a.,ked to vote for an once-for-all appropriation of max. 100 dn. '

I

[

1-

~I

I

...

~

~

How can the ratification by the nomothetai of a psephismabe reconciled with the principle that a nomosought to be a general permanent rule? Admittedly, since a nomoscould be changed only through a new 38 any revision of the merismos nomosand not through a psephisma, must be referred to the nmnothetai.Nevertheless it remains a disquieting fact that the nomotlutai,when ratifying honours bestowed on named persons, resorted to ad lwminemlegislation, which is in conflict with the principle that a nomos must be a general rule binding on all Athenians. The clash of principles is insurmountable, but the Athenians seem to have foreseen the problem and taken their precautions. In the law delimiting the concept of nomos there is an additional provision which has troubled many scholars and has not tf€iWB8E'tvcu, yet been satisfactorily explained: µ7181J-r?tiv8p111&µ.011 1 ' Eav

' ' , ' , ' ... "A- vauuc, , t ' ' ft. ' , 8o~u ,~ Kpv,.,aTJV ~Q~ P.TJ -rov «VTov Eff', 'lf'ac,11 n.,. Eav P.'1 E~a,cicx,11w,c 1

t/nJt/,,{oµ.lvo,c(Andoc. 1.87). The clause lav µ.~ lfaK,cxc.>tlo,c8&ErJ ,cpvP8TJv '1n,tf,,toµ,lvo,c is usually rejected as nonsense since it contradicts the principle that a nomosmust apply to all Athenians, and the phrase voµ.oc ,.,,.• ttv8pl is sometimes even changed into the term 37 I shall argue, however, that the text of the law is t/J~,J,,cµ,a l,,,.•&.v8pl. sound and can be understood without difficulty. The provision for a voµoc ,,,,., &.v8plis added to the law as an exemptionclause,and it is in perfect harmony with another exemption clause quoted in Dern. 24.45: No d.T,JJA>C is allowed to apply for a Against Dittenbcrger;s interpretation Rhodes has pointed out (op.eit.[n,pra n.2] 276) that the clause to be referred to the nomotMtaiis contained in lines 35-41 and not in lines 39--45. ae CJ.Hansen 324--25. 8 " E.,. G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, Gri«JiistMStaatskunde II (Milnchcn 1926) 885, 995, 1000. Quass, oJ,.ril.(Sfl/Wan.2) 20 with n.108. 31

194

DID 1HE ATIIENIAN ECCLESIA LEGISLAlE?

43

reduction of his sentence except when he has obtained an ci8E,a passed by a quorum of 6000 voting by ballot. It is important to notice that the 6000 Athenians do not make any decision on the reduction of the sentence; they merely permit that the application be made. 11 Similarly we must suppose that the 6000 who have to vote on a a,oµ.oc,,,,• la,t,pl do not pass the law. They merely permit that a a,oµ,oc i.w'o8pl be proposed. Now the nomotlusiai tsclf was invariably but it was always initiated in the conducted by the ntnn11UllttJi, assembly.39 So we may assume that a voµ.oc Jw' av8pl might be passed if a quorum of 6000 voting by ballot in the assembly decreed that nornolMtai be appointed with the purpose of making a decision on the

proposal. This seems to be exactly what happened in those three cases where the ,eelesia decreed that the grant of a sum of money to a person honoured be submitted to the nomothetaifor ratification. The money is paid out to a named person, but a decision made by the nomothetai is a nomos.Consequently the ratification must be a voµ.oc'-'"' a118pl. My combination of the law in Andoc. 1.87 with the three honorary decrees rests upon the assumption that the decision to submit the honorary decrees to the nomotlutaiwas passed by a quorum of 6000 voting by ballot. This assumption can be proved in one case, ,k. the decree for Pisithides. Among the honours bestowed on Pisithides is Athenian citizenship (lines 16-18), and we know from Dern. 59.89 that a citizenship decree had to be ratified by a quorum of 6000 voting by ballot. Thus the required quorum must have been present in the assembly and must have voted not only for the citizenship grant but also for the provision that the decree be submitted to the nomotllltaifor ratification. It can now be assumed, although not proved, that the other two honorary decrees as well were passed by the required quorum voting by ballot. Summing up: all the known exceptions to the principle that a nomos ought to be a general permanent rule can be explained as revisions of a nomo.s(the tmrismos) which ought to take the form of a ncnnos,and moreover as exemptions foreseen by the Athenians in the clause describing the conditions for passing a voµ.oc l1r' aa,8pl. Andoc. J.77, brn~ ~-w,lcal/'f'o JlfhJvtdo, .,.,,, Muon, "'~P'