| Part of a series on |
| Sparta |
|---|
| Spartan Constitution |
| Government |
| Social groups |
| Society |
| Cults |
| Festivals |
| Legacy |
TheSpartan Assembly, was the assembly of full citizens in theancient Greekcity-state ofSparta. Its principal role was to ratify the proposals brought to it by thegerousia and theephors. Unlike its more famous counterpart theAssembly of ancientAthens, the Spartan Assembly had more limited powers. It voted by acclamation, and whether it debated is unclear. Its official name is generally considered to have been 'theEkklesia',[1] rather than 'theApella' as once commonly thought.
The Spartan Assembly, one of the three institutions involved with decision-making at Sparta.[2] It consisted of the entire adult male citizenry, theSpartiates,[3] and its principal function was to ratify the proposals of the other two decision-making bodies, thegerousia (the council of elders, including the two Spartan kings), and theephors.[4] In contrast to its Athenian counterpart, very little is known for certain about the Spartan Assembly. It could not, unlike the Athenian assembly, introduce legislation; it could only vote on legislation brought before it by thegerousia or ephors. Whether ordinary members of the Assembly had the right to speak is unclear.[5] The Assembly was probably convened and chaired by the ephors and, in addition to its legislative powers, also decided issues of war and peace, appointed military commanders, and elected thegerousia.[6]
The Spartan Assembly probably existed, as an official Spartan institution, at least by the seventh century BC, and at first presumably met only when summoned. The earliest source for the Spartan Assembly is theGreat Rhetra (c. 700 BC?), quoted by the first-century historianPlutarch, and attributed to the legendary lawgiverLycurgus.[7] The Rhetra documents the decision-making procedures at Sparta, during the Archaic period.[8] It describes decision-making as being divided among thearchagetai ('kings'), thegerousia ('elders'), and thedamos[9] ('people', i.e. the Assembly), that the Assembly had regular meetings, at a fixed place, during which the two kings and thegerousia could put proposals for approval before the Assembly, and finally, that the kings andgerousia could veto any enactment passed by the Assembly.[10]
The procedure set forth in the Rhetra, was probouleutic, a practice common in Ancient Greece, by which proposals were first discussed in a council, and then voted on by a general assembly. Thus such an assembly was sovereign, in the sense that the assembly's consent was required before public action could be taken.[11] In Sparta's case, according to the Rhetra, the Assembly could also pass proposals of its own, subject to the possibility of their being vetoed by thegeruosia.[12]
A fragment of the mid-seventh-century BC Spartan poetTyrtaeus—using the terms "men of the people" (dēmotes andras) and "mass of the people" (dēmou plēthei)—seems also to refer to the Spartan Assembly during the Archaic period, saying that, after the kings and elders, then:
the men of the people, responding with straight utterances, are to speak fair words, act justly in everything, and not give the city (crooked) counsel. Victory and power are to accompany the mass of the people.[13]
As reported byHerodotus, in the mid-sixth century BC, the Assembly had enough power such that the threat of action by it could force the Spartan kingAnaxandridas II to give in to the demands of the ephors andgeruosia and take a second wife.[14]
Other than the Great Rhetra and the Tyrtaeus fragment, no general statements concerning the Spartan Assembly are found until the fourth century BC, in book two ofAristotle'sPolitics, where Aristotle seems to dismiss the Assembly as weak. Although, as noted above, the Rhetra implies that the Assembly could, at least during the Archaic period, pass proposals of its own, albeit subject to veto, Aristotle descries the Spartan Assembly as having "no powers except the function of confirming by vote the resolutions already formed by the Elders [gerousia]".[15] In a following passage Aristotle says that, unlike "in the Carthaginian system", where "anybody who wishes may speak against the proposals introduced", at Sparta (and Crete), the "people" must "merely ... sit and listen to the decisions that have been taken by their rulers".[16]
However, Aristotle's view of the Spartan Assembly as powerless, seems not only to conflict with the evidence concerning the Assembly from the Archaic period, but also with other reports from the fifth century, through the time Aristotle is writing thePolitics, in the fourth.[17] According toDiodorus Siculus, a debate was held in the Assembly, in the early fifth century BC, concerning the issue of whether Sparta should go to War with Athens for control of the sea, during which "the younger men and the majority of the others were [at first] eager" to do so.Thucydides describes the debate in the Assembly in 432 BC in which "the opinions of the majority all led to the same conclusion; the Athenians were open aggressors", and ended with the Assembly voting, by division, to declare war on Athens.[18] There are several other meetings of the Assembly during this period where matters "of major importance" were decided after "considerable debate".[19]
During this period at least, the Assembly also elected thegerousia.[20] Plutarch describes the election procedure as follows:
An assembly [ἐκκλησίας] of the people having been convened, chosen men were shut up in a room near by so that they could neither see nor be seen, but only hear the shouts of the assembly. For as in other matters, so here, the cries of the assembly decided between the competitors. These did not appear in a body, but each one was introduced separately, as the lot fell, and passed silently through the assembly. Then the secluded judges, who had writing-tablets with them, recorded in each case the loudness of the shouting, not knowing for whom it was given, but only that he was introduced first, second, or third, and so on. Whoever was greeted with the most and loudest shouting, him they declared elected.[21]
The historical record of events—as reported byHerodotus,Thucydides,Xenophon,Diodorus Siculus, andPlutarch—in which the Assembly is mentioned as being involved (or not involved) include the following:
| Date | Actions (or noted non-actions) by the Assembly |
|---|---|
| 540s[22] | Ephors threaten to convene the Assembly in order to force kingAnaxandridas II to accede to their demands concerning marriage.[23] |
| 432 | Decides, by division, to declare war on Athens.[24] |
| 418/7 (winter) | Agrees to a peace treaty with Athens.[25] |
| 415/4 (winter) | Agrees to aid Syracuse in its war with Athens, after being addressed by envoys fromSyracuse andCorinth, and also byAlcibiades;[26] |
| 405[27] | Decides on the terms of a peace offer to Athens, after being convened by the ephors and addressed by envoys fromCorinth andThebes.[28] |
| 403 | Dispatches a delegation to Athens to settle a dispute among Athenians, after being addressed by both sides.[29] |
| 402 ("probably")[30] 399[31] | Issues an ultimatum toElis.[32] |
| 399?[33] 397[34] | Cinadon conspiracy dealt with "without even convening the Little Assembly".[35] |
| 389 | Decides to help theAchaeans in control ofCalydon.[36] |
| 383 | Agrees to send aid toAcanthus andApollonia, after being convened by the ephors and addressed by their envoys.[37] |
| 382[38] | Decides to bringIsmenias to trial after being addressed byLeontiades ofThebes.[39] |
| 371 (spring) | Decides to make peace with Athens.[40] |
| 371 (summer) | Decides that the Spartan kingCleombrotus should march againstThebes.[41] |
| c. 243 | Rejected the proposed reforms of kingAgis IV involving debt cancellations and land redistribution, when—because of a dividedgerousia—they were convened by the ephor Lysander.[42] |
Although prior to the Great Rhetra the Assembly had presumably met only when summoned (by the kings orgerousia?), the Rhetra established (as Plutarch apparently believed) regular meetings of the Assembly at a fixed time and place.[43] However exactly when and where these regular meetings took place is unknown.[44]
According to the Rhetra, the Spartans shallapellazein (ἀπελλάζειν),horas ex horas (ὥρας ἐξ ὥρας). Plutarch explainsapellazein as meaning the same asekklesiazein (ἐκκλησιάζειν) 'to conduct an assembly', and is thought to be adenominal verb deriving from the nounApellai, the name of an annual festival celebrated atDelphi.[45] The phrasehoras ex horas is a vague expression implying continual repetition of some specific time period,[46] which could be used to mean 'every year', 'every month', 'every day' (or the like),[47] or, more vaguely still, 'from time to time'.[48] Although the festival of the Apellai is only attested for Delphi, based upon the widespread presence of the related month nameApellaios in Doric calendars, it was apparently a common festival among theDorians,[49] and from the use of wordapellazein, it has been concluded that the meetings of the Assembly, as specified in the Rhetra, were to be held at the same time as the Spartan festival of the Apellai was celebrated.[50] However, while the Delphic Apellai was celebrated yearly, the meetings of the Spartan Assembly were probably held (at least) monthly.[51]Plutarch connects the wordapellazein with Apollo,[52] and the Apellai is widely thought to have been a festival of Apollo.[53] According toHerodotus the Spartan kings sacrificed to Apollo "at each new moon and each seventh day of the first part of the month, ... from the public store". If either or both of these dates marked the Spartan Apellai, then perhaps the new moon or the seventh (or both) were dates of the regular meetings of the Assembly.[54] Alternativily, a latescholiast to Thucydides (1.67.3), says the Assembly met at each full moon.[55] In addition to these regular meetings, a remark byXenophon implies that the Assembly could also meet at other times when needed, since during the crisis of theCinadon conspiracy, he says that theephors did not even convene the "Little Assembly" (mikra ekklesia).[56]
As quoted by Plutarch the Rhetra specified that the meetings were to be held "between Babyca and Cnakion".[57] Plutarch goes on to explain that: "The Babyca is now called Cheimarrus, and the Cnacion Oenus; but Aristotle says that Cnacion is a river, and Babyca a bridge. Between these they held their assemblies, having neither halls nor any other kind of building for the purpose."[58] However these names are otherwise unknown, and where Babyca and Cnakion "actually were is a complete mystery".[59] According to the second-century AD geographerPausanias, the Spartan Assembly met "even at the present day" in a structure called theScias ('Canopy')[60] located on a road leading from Sparta's market-place, and built byTheodorus of Samos (fl. c. 540 BC).[61]
Meetings were probably convened and chaired by the ephors.[62] As noted above, there are several references to the ephors convening the Assembly in the historical record. These include: the ephors dispute with kingAnaxandridas II (540s BC);[63] the peace offer to Athens (405 BC);[64] theCinadon conspiracy (c. 399 BC);[65] the sending of aid toAcanthus andApollonia (383 BC); and the rejection of the proposed reforms of kingAgis IV (c. 243 BC).[66]
The official name for the popular assembly at Sparta—either 'the Ekklesia' or 'the Apella'—is disputed.[67] Scholarly consensus had thought that its official name was 'the Apella'. As recently as 1972,Ste Croix could declare that the "Spartan Assembly is still commonly referred to as 'the Apella'".[68] However followingWade-Gery 1958,Andrewes 1970, and Ste. Croix 1972, consensus shifted in favor of 'Ekklesia'.[69] More recently,Welwei 1997, 2000, and 2004 has revived the dispute, advocating in favor of 'Apella'.[70] Nevertheless, according to Nafissi 2010, current consensus "based on ancient evidence" still favors 'Ekklesia'.[71]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
