Every law or decree had to derive its existence from a ‘probouleuma’ (preliminary motion), which had previously been discussed in the Boule and placed upon the agenda. The subjects of these preliminary motions would be proposed by individual councillors or by public officials or by private citizens, who would usually approach a councillor and persuade him to bring up the relevant issue at a meeting of the Boule, or by the Ecclesia itself, which could instruct the Boule to bring in a probouleuma on a particular issue. The Boule at its meetings would then discuss the various issues before it, decide on the issues to be placed on the agenda for the Ecclesia and finally decide the form of each probouleuma: whether it should be a specific probouleuma – a bill worked out in full detail, recommending a course of action; or an open probouleuma – the issue simply placed on the agenda. It was essential that the legality of each probouleuma was carefully checked to ensure that it did not contravene the law; otherwise the proposer of the motion and the prytaneis, who would put the motion to the vote in the Ecclesia, would be liable to prosecution. The Boule could also pass decrees in their own right, but these covered only routine matters which needed speedy action but were not of sufficient importance to be brought before the Ecclesia.
Therefore, to summarize the Boule’s role in the democracy, it played a vital role in the state’s administration and was in charge of initiating business to be discussed and decided upon by the Ecclesia. Its sole concern with policy-making was its drafting of ‘probouleumata’ (the plural of probouleuma). However, it was here that the Boule had its one opportunity to influence state policy by casting a motion with its recommendation for a particular course of action. But every Athenian had the right in the Ecclesia to amend, reject or offer a counter-motion to that of the Boule and thus its potential influence could be nullified. Matters of a contentious nature would usually, but not always (see below under Ecclesia), be placed on the agenda as open probouleumata: it would then be left to the Athenians to decide upon a majority viewpoint and a recommended course of action after a debate in the Ecclesia. Thucydides’ extensive descriptions of such key debates as those concerning the alliance with Corcyra in 433 (1.31–45) and the reply to Sparta’s ultimatum in 432 (1.139–45) contain no mention of the Boule at all, let alone suggesting that it had any degree of influence in shaping Athens’ policy. The Athenians created three other checks to ensure that within the Boule no corporate identity or ‘esprit de corps’ developed, which might tempt it to usurp power. The use of the lot in the recruitment of councillors, the rotation of office of the ten tribes’ prytaneis (also decided by lot) and the limitation of one year in office (with a second year permissible but not in successive years) guaranteed that the Boule stayed the servant of the Ecclesia.
The Ecclesia
Attendance at the Ecclesia, whose meetings were held on the Pnyx, a hill near the Acropolis, was open to all Athenian citizens of eighteen years of age and above. Aristotle, writing in the second half of the fourth century, states that there were four meetings of the Ecclesia each prytany, i.e. 40 per year (Ath. Pol. 43.4–6). In each prytany there would be a Principal Assembly, known as the ‘kyria ecclesia’, and three others, in which some of the topics or subjects for discussion were mandatory. It seems unlikely that this prescribed number of meetings and the prescribed list of agenda topics operated in the fifth century: there were probably ten Principal Assemblies and numerous other assemblies, convened as often as the Athenians so desired; however, it is reasonable to assume that the agenda topics of the fourth-century assemblies would have been the same in the second half of the fifth. Therefore Aristotle’s Ath. Pol. is useful for discussing the range of issues that came before the fifth-century Assembly for decision:
One meeting, the Principal Assembly (‘kyria ecclesia’), is the one at which they are required to vote for the confirmation of officials if they appear to be governing well, and to deal with the food supply and the defence of the country; anyone who wishes to bring an impeachment (‘eisangelia’) must do so on this day; inventories of estates being confiscated must also be read and legal claims for the right of succession to inheritances and of marriage to an heiress so that everyone may have the opportunity to learn of any vacancy in an estate. (5) During the sixth prytany, in addition to the specified business, they take a vote on whether they should hold an ostracism or not; and also vote on preliminary information laid against anyone, Athenian citizen or ‘metic’, accused of being a sycophant, up to three cases in each class; in addition, they consider any cases where promises made to the demos have not been kept.
(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 43.4–5)
It can be clearly seen from the above quotation that the accountability of the public officials, especially the generals, was of paramount importance to the demos with a vote of confidence held ten times a year. However, the opportunity was also provided for any Athenian to bring an impeachment (‘eisangelia’) against any politically active citizen, often referred to as ‘rhetores’ (orators). Public officials were always directly accountable for their public actions, both in the votes of confidence in the Ecclesia and at their ‘euthuna’, but it was recognized that those politically active citizens, who proposed decrees in the Assembly but held no official post, also needed to be made personally accountable to the Athenian demos for their public actions. Thus one of the methods provided was the right of every Athenian citizen to impeach them in the Ecclesia for treason, which covered subversion of the democracy, betrayal, and accepting bribes to speak contrary to the best interests of the Athenian people (Hypereides Euxenippos 7–8, 29); for misleading the people by not keeping their promises (Demosthenes 49.67); or (probably) for any other crime that was not specifically covered in the existing law-code. This mechanism was designed to ensure that there could be no power without responsibility, and so acted as a deterrent to irresponsible ‘demagogic’ behaviour in the Ecclesia. In the sixth prytany, sycophants (see below under Heliaea), who as private prosecutors had gained a notorious reputation for unscrupulous ruthlessness, could also be indicted, and the possibility of holding an ostracism (see Glossary and Chapter 8) was made available in the same prytany. The other key issues, apart from the vote of confidence in the public officials, were the food supply and the defence of the country. Athens depended upon the importation of grain, as Attica was insufficiently fertile to feed the population, and this was intrinsically linked with the defence of the country. It was the Athenians’ loss of sea power after the battle of Aegospotamoi in 405, which resulted in the Spartans cutting off the grain imports from the Black Sea and starving the Athenians into submission in 404. Finally the Principal Assembly acted as a public information bureau for the people about such issues as confiscated property, heiresses, inheritances and probably other related issues.
The second Assembly [in each prytany] is devoted to petitions; at this meeting anyone who wishes may lay down a suppliant branch, and then address the demos on any subject he wishes, whether private or public.
(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 43.6)
This Assembly meeting was given over to private members’ business: it allowed the ordinary Athenian a public platform on which to raise any issue and convince his fellow Athenians that action was needed. If he man-aged to persuade the majority of citizens of the merits of his case, then they would instruct the Boule to introduce a probouleuma on this topic at a later session of the Ecclesia. This Assembly also ensured that the political rights of all citizens were safeguarded – any citizen, who failed to persuade a councillor to introduce his topic into the Boule for discussion and inclusion on the agenda for the Ecclesia, had the opportunity to bring it in person before the Athenian demos. The remaining two meetings were given over to three important topics:
The other two Assemblies [in each prytany] deal with any other business; at these the laws lay down that three cases of sacred matters are to be dealt with, three cases concerning the heralds and embassies, and three cases concerning secular matters.
(Aristotle, Ath. Pol
. 4.6)
These assemblies were concerned with current affairs in the areas of religion, foreign policy and domestic issues, with precedence being given to three issues on each topic chosen by lot.
Thus the Ecclesia exercised control over every area of public business. The agenda for the assembly would be published by the prytaneis four days in advance, thus giving the citizens time to organize their thoughts and their private business. There were extra assemblies when the citizens could be convened, if for example time for discussion on an important issue ran out or there was a major rethink on a decision previously passed. An excellent example of this was the Mytilenean debate in 427, in which it had been decided that the punishment to be meted out on the revolted Mytileneans should be death to the entire adult male citizen population and slavery for the women and children. However, on the next day there was widespread disquiet at the severity of the sentence and consequently a second assembly was convened at once to discuss the matter again (Thucydides 3.36).
Procedure in the Ecclesia
The main sources are Aristophanes in his two plays, The Thesmophoriazusae (Women celebrating the Thesmophoria) and the Ecclesiazusae (The Assembly Women), and the fourth-century orators, especially Demosthenes and Aeschines. The meetings of the assembly were presided over by the prytaneis (presidents) and the epistates (chief president – see above under Boule). They were assisted by a herald, who made all the official announcements to the Ecclesia on their behalf; a secretary of the people, who read out all documents to the people; and a secretary of the Boule, who presumably took the minutes of the meeting so that all decrees and laws passed at that session could be recorded accurately, and who received all amendments and counter-motions from the floor. The procedure can be deduced from The Thesmophoriazusae, which contains a parody of a meeting of the Ecclesia, where, during their festival of the Thesmophoria, the women are discussing what punishment should be inflicted on Euripides for his misogyny in his tragedies. The session begins with a prayer from the herald, in which he demands silence, and prays to the gods both to help the city to act wisely and to ensure that the speakers whose advice is the best succeed (ll. 295– 310). The herald then reads out the curse, which (if we remove the references to womankind, Euripides and the catalogue of women’s vices) calls upon the gods to destroy anyone who plots against the people, negotiates with the Persians or plans to become or restore a tyrant (ll. 331–51). The Ecclesia is now ready for business.
The Boule had already prepared and published the agenda, which consisted of a number of probouleumata (motions), some of which had been cast either as specific motions (bills worked out in full detail, containing recommendations) or open motions (the relevant issues simply placed on the agenda). M. H. Hansen’s research on the Landsgemeinde, the small cantons in German-speaking Switzerland, gives the best example of how a modern, direct democracy conducts its legislative business and gives a valuable insight into the probable workings of the Athenian Ecclesia. All specific probouleumata would be read out in turn with an immediate vote after each one by the citizens raising their hands. If the voting was unanimous in favour, then the probouleuma was immediately passed without further discussion. In this way all routine and non-contentious bills could be passed quickly, leaving more discussion time for the important or contentious issues. On the other hand, if even only one citizen voted against a specific probouleuma, then in the same way as the open probouleumata there would need to be a discussion. With the specific decrees passed, the herald would then come to the remaining probouleumata and would throw open the issue to the citizens by asking the question ‘Who wishes to speak?’ Once a citizen had been given permission to speak by the epistates, his rights to contribute to the legislation were total and absolute. If it was a specific probouleuma, not passed at the earlier vote, the Athenian citizen had the right to offer amendments, radically change or reject the probouleuma, or offer an alternative probouleuma to that of the Boule; if it was an open probouleuma, he had the right to offer his own specific probouleuma for consideration by the Ecclesia. After discussion, the final form of the decree with its amendments (if applicable) would be reached and the prytaneis would put it to the vote.
The role of the Ecclesia in legislation
The vital question is: Although the ordinary Athenian in theory possessed the above rights, which of the Ecclesia or the Boule in reality assumed the dominant role in the legislative process? In other words, did the Boule draft most of the decrees in detail and the Ecclesia act as a rubber-stamp in passing them, or did the Boule’s probouleumata avoid controversy, leaving the real power to the Athenians to shape policy in their debates in the Ecclesia? The two main sources of how decisions were reached in the Boule and the Ecclesia are the surviving inscriptions which record the decrees passed and the debates recounted in Thucydides and Xenophon.
Let us take the inscriptional evidence first. The inscriptions from the fifth century do cause problems as the more common prescript of the decrees states: ‘it was resolved by the Boule and the people’ and thus it is very hard to decide from where the main initiative for the decree arose. It is easier with the fourth-century decrees as the prescript tends to follow two formulas. Apart from the above fifth-century prescript, which was still in use, there was also the following: ‘it was resolved by the people’. It seems very probable that the first prescript was used when the Ecclesia passed a decree, which had previously been worked out in detail by the Boule, and used the second prescript when most, if not all, of the provisions of the decree had been worked out in the Ecclesia. However, the use of amendments in fifth-century decrees does give valuable clues. All decrees contain the name of the proposer of the decree as part of the prescript (along with the name of the presiding tribe, the epistates and the secretary of the Boule), which in itself reveals nothing; but if the amendment begins with: ‘X moved this amendment to the Council’s probouleuma: …’, or something similar, then the main body of the decree was drafted in the Boule and it took the main initiative. If the amendment begins with; ‘X proposed this amendment to the decree of Y: …’, or something similar, then the main initiative for the decree came from the Ecclesia with the Boule simply putting the issue on the agenda in the form of an open probouleuma, as in the regulations for the establishment of the colony of Brea in c.446/5 (ML 49; AE232 pp. 119–20) or the decree of Anticles, as part of the regulations for Chalcis in 446/5 after its revolt (ML 52; AE78 pp. 44–45). Although it is not possible to identify from fifth-century inscriptions which of the two institutions was the more active in initiating legislation, it is clear that both institutions could and did play a role in shaping policy.
If the major debates that are recorded in depth in Thucydides are used as evidence, then there is no doubt that the Ecclesia assumed the main initiative in decision-making. In 433 the Athenians had to decide on the advantages and disadvantages of an alliance with Corcyra against Corinth, the consequences of which could lead to war with the Peloponnesians (1.31– 45); in 432/1 the Athenians had to respond to the Spartan ultimatum (1.139–45); and in 427 decide on the fate of the population of Mytilene (3.36–49). These three examples reveal the dominance of the Ecclesia to such an extent that the Boule is not even mentioned in these events. Therefore it seems reasonable to say that the Ecclesia took the dominant role in making policy but that the Boule could exert influence over the decisions made by the people. The Thoudippus decree (ML69; AE138 pp. 66–67), which increased threefold the financial contributions of the subject-allies and whose main initiative came from the Boule, had a dramatic effect on the Athenians’ income and thus their ability to wage an increasingly expensive war. However, this ability to influence could easily be blunted and removed by the ordinary Athenian citizen exerting his constitutional power in the Ecclesia.
Although the Ecclesia was sovereign, there were important legal safeguards to ensure that its power and freedom were not abused and descend into licence and lawlessness. First, no decree could be discussed and passe
d, unless it had already been placed on the agenda by the Boule as a probouleuma. In the second assembly in each prytany, where provision was made for any citizen to raise any private or public issue before the people, if a majority approved of it, then the issue was still referred back to the Boule to make it the subject of a probouleuma and place it on the agenda of a future meeting of the Ecclesia. Second, every amendment and alternative motion had to be in writing. Third, and most importantly, if any probouleuma was illegal or in conflict with an earlier law, then either a citizen could issue a ‘graphe paranomon’, i.e. a summons against someone for proposing such an illegal decree, or the prytaneis could refuse to put the probouleuma to the vote.
The best example of the Ecclesia’s safeguards in operation (and being unconstitutionally overridden) comes from the trial of the six generals (eight generals were charged, but two of them had not returned to Athens) in 406, which is recorded by Xenophon. The generals had defeated the Peloponnesian navy at the battle of Arginusae but failed to pick up all of the Athenian survivors from the twelve disabled ships, which eventually sank and whose crews perished. These generals were charged with criminal negligence and the Boule proposed, as it had every right to do in cases of such public importance, that the generals should be tried in the Ecclesia. In the first meeting of the Ecclesia both the generals and their accusers gave their accounts of what happened after the battle. As it was late, the Ecclesia instructed the Boule to review the matter and to prepare a probouleuma concerning the type of trial the generals should have. At the next meeting of the Ecclesia, the Boule, under the influence of Callixeinus and with him as proposer, put forward a probouleuma that without any further speeches or evidence the Athenians should vote immediately on the generals’ guilt or innocence, and that their fate should be decided by one single vote and not by six separate votes. However:
Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC) Page 38