Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC)

by Terry Buckley

  The people have made themselves masters of everything and control all things by decrees and by the jury courts, in which the people have the sovereign power.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 41.2)

  The radical and democratic nature of Ephialtes’ reforms is most revealed in the changes to the institution of the Heliaea. It had been created by Solon as a court of appeal for citizens, who were dissatisfied with the legal judgements of the aristocratic archons or the Areopagus, and was in effect the Ecclesia sitting as a law court. Ephialtes now made it a court of first instance so that it could administer justice in its own right. A panel of 6,000 jurors was selected each year by lot, very possibly 600 from each of the ten tribes (Ath. Pol. 24.3). This number was recognized by the Athenians as a quorum of the body politic, i.e. it was the smallest number which could be said to represent all the Athenian citizens. Therefore the 6,000 in the Heliaea were still acting as the whole ‘demos’ and, as they now had primary jurisdiction, there was no need for an appeal court. The Heliaea rarely sat as a court of 6,000 but was now divided up into smaller panels, known as ‘dikasteria’. The supervision of the public officials in their ‘dokimasiai’ and their ‘euthunai’, and the increase in the legal business arising from the Delian League demanded a more efficient system to handle this growing amount of legal work. The use of the lot provided equality of opportunity for all those Athenians who wished to serve in the people’s jury courts. However, the introduction of ‘misthophoria’ (state pay) at two obols a day for attendance as a juror was the other vital principle, apart from the lot, which made full democracy a reality by supplying the means for even the poorest Athenian to serve the state:

  Pericles was the first man to provide payment for jury service as a political measure to counter the private generosity of Cimon.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 27.3)

  Pericles was credited with this reform, but there is doubt as to whether it was introduced in 462/1 as part of Ephialtes’ reforms or soon after in the 450s. The 462/1 date is more compelling, since the enrolment of 6,000 jurors to dispense primary jurisdiction in the dikasteria would have been impossible without the introduction of pay to attract the required number. The programme of the reformers in 462/1 was wide-ranging and it should cause no surprise that Ephialtes handed over responsibility for some of the legislation to his trusted political ally. Aristides had already introduced proposals into the Ecclesia under the names of other men at an earlier date (Plu-tarch, Aristides 3) and the decree of Thoudippus (ML 69; AE138 pp. 66–67), which authorized a threefold increase in the total contributions of Athens’ subject-allies in 425, was most probably inspired by Cleon, who was the dominant politician in Athens at this time and was related to Thoudippus by marriage. Plutarch states that Pericles’ reform was part of the democratic programme, which was led by Ephialtes and which involved them both in the attack upon the powers of the Areopagus (Pericles 9) – hence 462/1 is the more likely date. Aristotle in the Ath. Pol. stressed that the judicial power of the people in their jury courts was the main basis for establishing political sovereignty, and this reform of the judiciary should be seen as the most far-reaching:

  For when the people are masters of the vote in court, they become masters of the state.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 9.1)

  The third branch of democratic government concerns the executive which, through its public officials and boards, carries out the decisions of the people as expressed in their decrees. In Athens, the most important body of the executive (and the third main institution to benefit from the reforms of Ephialtes) was the Boule of 500. In a full democracy there is a need for a smaller body of citizens to help the legislature to be efficient in making its decisions as well as ensuring that the decrees of the legislature are implemented. Consequently, the Boule of 500 had two main functions – probouleutic and administrative. Its probouleutic power allowed the Boule to receive and discuss all proposals for inclusion on the agenda for the next meeting of the Ecclesia (Ath. Pol. 45.4). As the number of meetings of the Ecclesia increased after Ephialtes’ reforms and consequently the number of issues to be decided, this role of the Boule became even more vital in helping the full democracy to formulate policy and make decisions. Its administrative power put it at the head of the day-to-day running of the state: apart from its own internal boards (for example, the euthunoi and the logistai), it helped and supervised the other public officials in the performance of their public duties (Ath. Pol. 47.1). According to Aristotle, there were 700 public officials (‘archai’) who had domestic responsibilities in Attica, as well as 700 (this number is suspect) overseas officials (Ath. Pol. 24.3). Most of these public officials were chosen by lot (one from each tribe), held office for one year only, and served on boards (usually consisting of ten members), each of which had responsibility for one specific area of public administration. Thus the Boule of 500 exercised a vital supervisory and coordinating role which was essential for the smooth running of the state. Membership of the Boule was organized on the basis of 50 men chosen by lot from each of the ten tribes (Ath. Pol. 43.2). Ephialtes’ removal of pre-selection before the lot took place was another advance for full democracy, since it gave every citizen an equal opportunity to serve in the Boule. However, the absence of state pay meant that the middle classes still dominated as councillors in the Boule of 500 and as public officials.

  Soon after the reforms were passed, Ephialtes was assassinated and the leadership of his faction probably passed to Pericles. Ephialtes had laid down the fundamental principles of a full democracy – accountability, the lot and payment for office – and it was Pericles’ task to complete the democratic reforms by spreading these principles throughout the remaining institutions. Pay for serving as councillors in the Boule of 500 and as public officials (archai) was most probably introduced in the 450s. In 457, the diminished role of the archons, whose judicial role was now restricted to presidency of the dikasteria with no powers of judgement, allowed the office to be opened up to the middle-class ‘zeugitae’ (Ath. Pol. 26.2). By the end of the 450s, many more Athenians were participating in their democracy and receiving its benefits, which was one of the reasons why Pericles introduced his Citizenship Law in 451:

  In the third year after that, in the archonship of Antidotus, on account of the large number of citizens they decided on the proposal of Pericles that a man should not be a member of the citizen body unless both of his parents had been Athenian citizens.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 26.3)

  With full democracy in place its financial cost could only be maintained by restricting the eligibility of those entitled to benefit from its advantages.

  Bibliography

  Bury, J. B. and Meiggs, R. A History of Greece, ch. 9.

  Davies, J. K. Democracy and Classical Greece, ch. 4.

  Forrest, W. G. The Emergence of Greek Democracy, ch. 9.

  Hignett, C. A History of the Athenian Constitution, chs 4, 8 and 9.

  Ostwald, M. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law, pts 1.1 and 2.5.

  Rhodes, P. J. CAH vol. 5, 2nd edn, ch. 4.

  Roberts, J. W. City of Socrates. An Introduction to Classical Athens, ch. 3.

  Wallace, R. W. The Areopagus Council, to 307 BC, chs 2 and 3.

  14

  THE INSTITUTIONS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

  The sources

  The three major institutions of Athens’ democracy were the ‘Boule’, the ‘Ecclesia’ and the ‘Heliaea’ (also known as the ‘dikasteria’, when subdivided into panels of jurors). The main evidence for the workings and the powers of these three bodies comes from Aristotle’s Ath. Pol., the speeches of the fourth-century orators, the comedies of Aristophanes and documentary inscriptions – each of which provides some problems for the historian. The Ath. Pol., although very detailed, describes the working of these institutions in the fourth century, as do the speeches of the orators; Aristophanes was comic playwright, not a constitutional historian, and his main aim was to make his audience
laugh by using exaggeration and parody, not by giving accurate descriptions of the institutions in operation in the late fifth century; the documentary inscriptions come at the end of the political process, and consequently give only a partial insight into the preliminary proceedings which culminated in the law or decree contained in the inscription.

  The Boule

  The Boule of 500 was appointed by lot, 50 men from each of the ten tribes, with each deme within the tribe supplying its prescribed quota of tribal councillors according to its size (Ath. Pol. 43.2). At the same time each councillor had a substitute, also appointed by lot, allocated to them in case of illness or ineligibility to take up the post. Each appointee had to be over 30 years of age and had to undergo a ‘dokimasia’ (investigation) by the outgoing Boule. This was a preliminary investigation to see if the new councillor was eligible to take up the post: for example, that he possessed Athenian citizenship, and was the right age (Ath. Pol. 45.3). The dokimasia would also ascertain if the new councillor had held this office before, as it was laid down that no man could be a councillor more than twice in his lifetime and not in successive years. 247

  Organization

  The Boule of 500 was too big and unwieldy to be in permanent session to carry out its various tasks and so it was subdivided into smaller committees, one of which would be the directing or steering committee. The Athenian year was divided into ten ‘prytanies’ (a period of 35 or 36 days), and the 50 councillors from each of the ten tribes took it in turn to be this steering committee for one ‘prytany’. These fifty men were known as the ‘prytaneis’ (presidents), receiving more pay for their more onerous tasks, and the lot would be used to decide which tribe presided in which prytany. These prytaneis would eat together in the ‘Tholos’ (‘The Round House’) and it was their task to convene meetings of the Boule each day (apart from public holidays) and the Ecclesia, when appropriate. They would specify where the Boule was to meet and take charge of the agenda, specifying the topics to be discussed on the different days (Ath. Pol. 43.2). On each day an ‘epistates’ (a chief president) – who could only hold the post once in his lifetime – was chosen by lot from the 50 prytaneis. On that one day and one night he was the nominal head of the Athenian state. He would be the chairman of the Boule or even the Ecclesia, if it was in session on that day; he would also be responsible for the keys of the sanctuaries where the Athenian funds and records were kept; and finally he would be in charge of the public seal. The 50 presidents themselves were broken down into a smaller sub-committee. The epistates and one-third of the prytaneis had to be in permanent attendance at the Tholos to deal with any issue or crisis that might arise within a 24 hour period (Ath. Pol. 44.1).

  Powers and responsibilities

  The ‘demos’ was sovereign but it needed a smaller body not only to help the Ecclesia to be an effective policy-making institution but also to execute the wishes of the demos as expressed in its decrees and laws. The Boule was a cross-section of the demos, as every geographical area, every class and every interest was included. It was the ‘polis in miniature’ and thus was closely in tune with the prevailing attitudes and values of the Ecclesia. It was crucial to the working of the radical democracy of Athens, as the absence of such a body would lead to institutional anarchy; alternatively its replacement by a specialist, long-standing body would severely restrict the power of the Athenian demos by gradually absorbing the decision-making functions of the Ecclesia. The Boule had two major powers and responsibilities – administrative and probouleutic.

  The Boule was placed at the head of Athenian administration and consequently its major administrative function was to aid and supervise the other public officials:

  In general, the Boule shares in the administration of the other officials.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 49.5)

  There were numerous committees, usually consisting of ten citizens chosen by lot, specializing in one particular area of administration, such as the ten ‘poletae’ (sellers), who were responsible for letting out the various state contracts and leases, and the ‘colecretae’ (receivers), who made all the payments on behalf of the state. All these different committees were responsible to the Boule, which ensured that they carried out their duties efficiently and in accordance with the law. This supervisory and coordinating role at the heart of the administration of Athens helped to avoid a duplication and a dereliction of duties. The Boule also investigated any complaints against public officials and could fine them up to 500 drachmas:

  Most trials of officials, particularly of those who handle money, are judged by the Boule; their verdict, however, is not final but is subject to appeal to the jury-court. Private individuals also have the right to bring an impeachment (‘eisangelia’) against any official for illegal conduct; and in these cases also the officials can appeal to the jury-court if the Council finds them guilty.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 45.2)

  The Athenians were particularly concerned that public money was properly accounted for and, as can be seen from the above quotation, they expected the Boule to exercise strict financial control. The Boule also supplied five sub-committees, chosen by lot from within its own number, which had responsibility for areas of administration that were considered too important to Athens’ vital interests to be left to other bodies. There were the ten ‘euthunoi’ (public auditors) who reviewed an official’s conduct at the end of his year in office; and (in the fifth century) the 30 ‘logistai’ (public accountants) who checked the accounts of all officials that handled public money. These two sub-committees ensured that every action of every public official was accountable to the Athenian demos (Ath. Pol. 48.3– 5). Two other sub-committees were involved in the crucial area of maintenance and exercise of Athens’ naval power: the ten ‘trieropoioi’ (triremebuilders), who had authority over the construction of new warships and the necessary funds, and ten men, who were in charge of the dockyards, naval equipment and the dispatch of naval expeditions (Ath. Pol. 46.1). The final sub-committee consisted of the ten ‘hieropoioi’ (doers of sacred things), who presided at important holy ceremonies such as the consecration of first fruits at Eleusis. By its exercise of such powers described above the Boule performed the role of an Athenian Home Office.

  The Boule also handled all diplomatic relations between Athens and other states, and in this respect was similar to the Foreign Office. All heralds and foreign envoys approached the Boule first in order to explain the nature of their business in Athens. In the same way Athenian envoys and generals on duty away from Athens gave their reports to the Boule, which would discuss them and put them on the agenda for the Ecclesia, if it thought fit. Whenever oaths had to be taken on behalf of the Athenian people, it was the Boule (with the Heliaea) that carried out this function:

  The Athenian Council and dikasts are to swear the oath on the following terms: ‘I will not expel the Chalcidians from Chalcis.’

  (The Chalcis Decree [ML 52; AE78 p. 44])

  Even more important was the role of the Boule in the assessment and collection of ‘phoros’ (tribute) from the subject-allies in the Athenian Empire. The Cleinias Decree, also known as the Tribute Decree, established the Boule’s central role in the collection of phoros. All phoros was sealed and sent with a tablet, recording the amount of phoros, to the Boule for checking, which then had to call a meeting of the Ecclesia for the ‘Hellenotamiae’ (Treasurers) to report on the allies who had paid in full and on those who had defaulted. Finally it was the duty of the Boule to prosecute those defaulters, who after being warned had still not paid (ML 46; AE190 pp. 102–3). The phoros from the allies was the main source of Athens’ income in the second half of the fifth century. Until 425, it amounted to roughly 600 talents from a total income of 1,000 talents (Xenophon, Ana-basis 7.1.27) and, after the decree of Thoudippus in 425 (ML 69; AE138 pp. 66–67), roughly 1,500 talents from a total of 2,000. The above duty in the running of the Athenian Empire, together with its close working relationship the generals and the Hellenotamiae,
is the perfect example of the Boule’s indispensable role as the head of the administration of Athens.

  The second main responsibility of the Boule was its probouleutic function, i.e. to prepare the agenda for the Ecclesia:

  It frames preliminary motions (‘probouleumata’) for the demos, and the demos cannot vote on any measure that has not been prepared by the Boule in this way and of which the prytaneis have not given advance notice in writing.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 45.4)