Wikipedia

Spartan Assembly

Not to be confused with Apellai.

The Spartan Assembly, was the assembly of full citizens in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta. Its principal role was to ratify the proposals brought to it by the gerousia and the ephors. Unlike its more famous counterpart the Assembly of ancient Athens, the Spartan Assembly had more limited powers. Its concurrence was required for legislation, and it helped determine state policy, particularly in foreign affairs. It voted by acclamation, and whether it debated is uncertain. The Assembly had regular meetings, which were probably convened and chaired by the ephors. Its official name is generally considered to have been 'the Ekklesia',[1] rather than 'the Apella' as once commonly thought.[2]

Description

[edit]

The Spartan Assembly consisted of the entire adult male citizenry, the Spartiates.[3] Its total number of members is estimated to have been at least 3,000 during the fifth century BC.[4] It was one of the three institutions involved with decision-making at Sparta,[5] its principal function being to ratify the proposals of the other two decision-making bodies, the gerousia (the council of elders, including the two Spartan kings), and the ephors.[6] In contrast to its Athenian counterpart, very little is known for certain about the Spartan Assembly.[7] It could not, unlike the Athenian assembly, introduce legislation; it could only vote on legislation brought before it by the gerousia or ephors.[8] The Assembly was probably convened and chaired by the ephors and, in addition to its legislative powers, it also decided issues of war and peace, appointed military commanders, elected the gerousia, and could emancipate helots.[9] Decisions of the Assembly were determined by shouting (or occasionally by division), rather than the counting of votes.[10] Whether ordinary members of the Assembly had the right to speak is unclear.[11]

History

[edit]

Archaic period

[edit]

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 concerning the Assembly is the Great Rhetra (c. 700 BC?). As quoted by the first-century historian Plutarch, and attributed to the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus, the Rhetra describes the Assembly's role in governing Sparta. According to the Rhetra, decision-making was divided among the archagetai ('kings'), the gerousia ('elders'), and the damos[12] ('people', i.e. the Assembly). The Assembly had regular meetings, at a fixed time and place, during which the two kings and the gerousia could put proposals for approval before the Assembly, and the kings and gerousia could veto any enactment passed by the Assembly.[13]

A fragment of the mid-seventh-century BC Spartan poet Tyrtaeus—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.[14]

As reported by fifth-century BC historian Herodotus, the Assembly had enough power in the mid-sixth century BC such that the threat of action by it could force the Spartan king Anaxandridas II to give in to the demands of the ephors and geruosia and take a second wife.[15]

Classical period

[edit]

By at least the Classical period, the Assembly was involved in the election of public officials.[16] These included the gerousia and "very probably" the ephors.[17] The election of the gerousia by the Assembly is attested in the fourth century BC.[18] A century earlier Herodotus had already connected the Assembly with elections, saying that for ten days after a Spartan king is buried, "there are no assemblies or elections".[19] Plutarch, writing in the first century AD, places the election of the gerousia by the Assembly in the legendary past, attributing its establishment to Lycurgus.[20] Plutarch describes the procedure for these elections 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]

In the fifth century BC, the most notable actions of the Assembly involve war with Athens. In the early part of the century, a debate was held in the Assembly concerning the issue of whether Sparta should go to War with Athens for control of the sea. According to Diodorus Siculus, "the younger men and the majority of the others were [at first] eager" to go to war, but were eventually persuaded otherwise.[22] Thucydides describes a 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.[23] The Assembly is recorded as being involved in several other significant events, in the fifth and fourth centuries—most regarding the issues of war and peace (see below).[24]

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 of Aristotle's Politics. Aristotle describes the Spartan Assembly as having "no powers except the function of confirming by vote the resolutions already formed by the Elders [gerousia]".[25] In a following passage Aristotle says that, unlike at Carthage, 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".[26]

Historical record: 540–243 BC

[edit]

The historical record of events—as reported by Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch—in which the Assembly is explicitly mentioned as being involved (or not involved)[27] include the following:

Date Actions (or noted non-actions) by the Assembly
540s Ephors threaten to convene the Assembly in order to force king Anaxandridas II to accede to their demands concerning marriage.[28]
480s Consults regarding atonement for the murder of the Persian heralds sent by Darius; sends two Spartan volunteers to be executed by Darius's son Xerxes.[29]
c. 475 Decides not to go to war with Athens, after initially being "eager" for war, but finally being persuaded otherwise.[30]
432 Decides, by division, to declare war on Athens.[31]
winter 418/417 Agrees to a peace treaty with Argos.[32]
winter 415/414 Agrees to aid Syracuse in its war with Athens, after being addressed by envoys from Syracuse and Corinth, and also by Alcibiades on his own behalf.[33]
405[34] Decides on the terms of a peace offer to Athens, after being convened by the ephors and addressed by envoys from Corinth and Thebes.[35]
403 Dispatches a delegation to Athens to settle a dispute between two Athenian factions, after being addressed by both.[36]
c. 402[37] Issues (jointly with the ephors?)[38] an ultimatum to Elis.[39]
399?[40] 397[41] Cinadon conspiracy dealt with "without even convening the Little Assembly".[42]
c. 389 Agrees to aid the Calydon Achaeans against the Acarnanians.[43]
383 Agrees to aid Acanthus and Apollonia, after being convened by the ephors and addressed by envoys.[44]
382[45] Decides to bring Ismenias to trial after being addressed by Leontiades of Thebes.[46]
spring 371 Decides to make peace with Athens.[47]
summer 371 Decides that the Spartan king Cleombrotus should march against Thebes.[48]
c. 243 Rejects the proposed reforms of king Agis IV involving debt cancellations and land redistribution, when—because of a divided gerousia—they were convened by the ephor Lysander.[49]

Meetings

[edit]

As Plutarch understood it, the Great Rhetra established[50] regular meetings of the Assembly at a fixed time and place.[51] However, exactly when and where these regular meetings took place is unknown.[52] As to when meetings were held, Plutarch reports the Rhetra as saying that the Spartans shall apellazein (ἀπελλάζειν), horas ex horas (ὥρας ἐξ ὥρας). Plutarch explains apellazein as meaning the same as ekklesiazein (ἐκκλησιάζειν) 'to conduct an assembly', and is thought to be a denominal verb derived from the noun apellai (‘assembly’), with the Apellai being the name of an annual festival celebrated at Delphi.[53] The phrase horas ex horas is a vague expression implying continual repetition of some specific time period,[54] which could be used to mean 'every year', 'every month', 'every day' (or the like),[55] or, more vaguely still, 'from time to time'.[56] Although the festival of the Apellai is only attested for Delphi, based upon the widespread presence of the related month name Apellaios in Doric calendars, it was apparently a common festival among the Dorians,[57] and from the use of word apellazein, 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.[58] However, while the Delphic Apellai was celebrated yearly, the meetings of the Spartan Assembly were probably held (at least) monthly.[59] Plutarch connects the word apellazein with Apollo,[60] and the Apellai is widely thought to have been a festival of Apollo.[61] According to Herodotus 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.[62] Alternativily, a late scholiast to Thucydides (1.67.3), says the Assembly met at each full moon.[63] The association of the Assembly with the festival of the Apellai has suggested to scholars that, because the Apellai was an annual festival at Delphi, there was an annual meeting of the Assembly at Sparta during which the highest annual public officials were elected.[64] In addition to these regular meetings, a remark by Xenophon implies that the Assembly could also meet at other times when needed, since during the crisis of the Cinadon conspiracy, he says that the ephors did not even convene the "Little Assembly" (mikra ekklesia).[65]

As quoted by Plutarch the Rhetra specified that the meetings were to be held "between Babyca and Cnakion".[66] 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."[67] However these names are otherwise unknown, and where Babyca and Cnakion "actually were is a complete mystery".[68] According to the second-century AD geographer Pausanias, the Spartan Assembly met "even at the present day" in a structure called the Scias ('Canopy')[69] located on a road leading from Sparta's market-place, and built by Theodorus of Samos (fl. c. 540 BC).[70]

Meetings were probably convened and chaired by the ephors.[71] As noted above, there are several references to the ephors convening the Assembly in the historical record. These include: the ephors dispute with king Anaxandridas II (540s BC);[72] the peace offer to Athens (405 BC);[73] the Cinadon conspiracy (c. 399 BC);[74] the sending of aid to Acanthus and Apollonia (383 BC); and the rejection of the proposed reforms of king Agis IV (c. 243 BC).[75] Thucydides' description of the Assembly's decision to declare war on Athens in 432 BC has the ephor Sthenelaidas "put the question to the assembly" as well as determine the method of voting.[76]

Power and importance

[edit]

The relative power and importance of the Spartan Assembly with respect to the kings, gerousia, and ephors is a matter of scholarly debate.[77] During the Archaic period, as set forth in the Rhetra, the decision-making procedure 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 constitutionally required for certain state actions.[78] In Sparta's case, according to the Rhetra, the Assembly could apparently also modify the proposals brought before it, subject to the possibility of their being vetoed by the geruosia.[79]

As documented for the Classical period, the Assembly seems to have had supreme authority in foreign affairs, particularly matters of war and peace,[80] something that Ste. Croix 1972 considered unsurprising given that the Assembly was "above all the organ of the collective warriors and ex-warriors".[81] Nevertheless, at Sparta, the probouleutic bodies (i.e the gerousia and the ephors) exerted more direct power over political decision-making—and thus the popular assembly less—than at Athens.[82] In particular, the right of the gerousia, as described in the Rhetra, to block actions of the Assembly, could in theory have acted as a significant check on its power.[83]

Aristotle seems to have viewed the Spartan Assembly during the fourth century BC as particularly weak.[84] As noted above, in his Politics, he asserts that the Assembly has "no powers except the function of confirming by vote the resolutions already formed by the Elders [gerousia]".[85] The verb Aristotle used for the Assembly's only power (translated above as "confirming by vote") is "συνεπιψηίσαι" which means to 'join in ratifying' (a law).[86] According to Andrewes 1967, Aristotle's phrasing in this passage and the verb used, "rather suggest that he thought the assembly was a mere rubber stamp".[87] Some scholars have seen Aristotle's view of a weak Assembly as in conflict[88]–not only 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 the Politics, in the fourth.[89]

A related issue is to what extent genuine debates occurred in the Assembly and who had the right to speak. Here again there seems to be no scholarly consensus. Wade-Gery 1958 and Andrewes 1967 have seen in the historical record, examples of "plenty of talk" and "considerable debate",[90] with Wade-Gery noting that, although the reported speakers are all officials, "it is gratuitous to suppose that they had to be".[91] Conversely Ste. Croix 1972 sees only two occasions for which there is evidence of "any debate, let alone 'considerable debate' by Spartans" (as opposed to foreign speakers),[92] and thinks it probable that ordinary members of the Assembly could only speak if invited to by the presiding ephor.[93] Kennell 2010, while noting that "who the possessors of various 'opinions' mentioned by the historians were and whether they might have expressed them in debates remains unknown",[94] concludes that "although far from being a cockpit of free-wheeling debate and legislative initiative like the Athenian Assembly, the Spartan model was no mere rubber stamp for decisions of the magistrates."[95]

In any case, although there is no scholarly consensus about the "balance of power among [Sparta's] deliberative bodies",[96] as documented for the Classical period, the Assembly played a significant role.[97] As Esu 2024 describes it, "Spartan deliberation was the result of a complex interaction" between the gerousia, ephors and the Assembly.[98]

Name

[edit]

The official name for the popular assembly at Sparta—either 'the Ekklesia' or 'the Apella'—is disputed.[99] 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'".[100] However following Wade-Gery 1958, Andrewes 1967, and Ste. Croix 1972, consensus shifted in favor of 'Ekklesia'.[101] More recently, Welwei 1997[102] has revived the dispute, advocating in favor of 'Apella'.[103]

The evidence from ancient sources is mixed.[104] The common noun apella does not occur in the singular in any ancient text,[105] with all known uses of the plural form apellai coming from Doric speaking regions of Greece.[106] The lexicographer Hesychius (5th/6th century AD) explains the meaning of apellai with the gloss: sekoi, ekklesiai, archairesiai,[107] where ekklesiai refers to official public assemblies, and archairesiai refers to assemblies for the election of magistrates.[108] The only other occurrences of apellai are in the Labyad inscription (late fifth to fourth century BC) of Delphi, which mentions an Apellai festival, as well as two first-century BC inscriptions from Sparta's seaport town of Gytheion, which contain the formulaic expression used to introduce official decrees of the people's assembly: "ἔδοξε τῶι δάμωι" ('it was decided by the people'), followed by: "ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις ἀπελλαῖς" ('at the great apellai').[109] As mentioned above, Plutarch explained the apparently related word apellazein (ἀπελλάζειν),[110] as being "a reference to Apollo", and meaning the same as ekklesiazein (ἐκκλησιάζειν) 'to conduct an assembly'.[111] From this evidence, some scholars have inferred that the common noun apella meant 'assembly' in Sparta's Doric dialect, with Apella becoming the proper noun naming the Spartan popular assembly.[112]

The most important evidence in support of the name Ekklesia comes from the contemporary literary sources, particularly Thucydides and Xenophon,[113] which consistently call the Spartan Assembly ekklesia.[114] Thucydides lists the eight terms of a treaty of peace and defensive alliance with Argos in 418/17 BC, with the introduction: "The assembly [ἐκκλησίᾳ] of the Lacedaemonians agrees to treat with the Argives upon the terms following".[115] Other important evidence comes from Xenophon, who, according to Ste. Croix, "knew his Sparta very well indeed".[116] Twice Xenophon mentions decisions as being by "the ephors and the assembly [ekklesia]".[117] Xenophon, in his account of the Cinadon conspiracy, also refers to a little ekklesia, with the qualifier ("καλουμένην", 'so called'),[118] which seems to imply that the "Little Ekklesia" was the name of some Spartan institution (otherwise unknown),[119] with the adjective 'little' needed to distinguish it from the "Great Ekklesia", or simply the "Ekklesia".[120]

Luther 2006, while concluding that Sparta's popular assembly was probably called the Ekklesia,[121] has suggested that an annual meeting of the Assembly during which public officials were elected may have been called the Apellai.[122] Nevertheless, according to Nafissi 2010, current consensus "based on ancient evidence" still favors 'Ekklesia'.[123]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The same name used by the Athenians for their popular assembly.
  2. ^ For general references, see: Gomme, Cadoux, and Rhodes 2015, s.v. ekklēsia; Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1); Rhodes 2006, s.v. Ekklesia; Welwei 2006, s.v. Apella, Apellai.
  3. ^ Gomme, Cadoux, and Rhodes 2015, s.v. ekklēsia; Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1), which adds the qualifier "in good standing".
  4. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Kelly 1981, 48.
  5. ^ Esu 2024, p. 125.
  6. ^ Esu 2024, p. 127. For discussions of the government of Sparta, see: Esu 2024, pp. 125–151; Kennell 2010, pp. 93–114; Ehrenberg 1968, pp. 31–47; Andrewes 1967, pp. 1–20.
  7. ^ Kennell 2010, pp. 111–112. Compare: Luther 2006, p. 75, which remarks on the relative rarity of mentions of the Spartan Assembly in antiquity, and notes that these may be concealed behind more general expressions such as οἱ Λακεδαιμόνοι (Lakedaimonioi, 'the Lacedaemonians' i.e Spartans), ἡ πόλις ('the polis') or τὸ κοινόν (to koinón, 'the body politic'); Esu 2024, p. 129, which notes that Sparta lacked the same "epigraphic habit" of Classical Athens.
  8. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 112.
  9. ^ Luther 2006, p. 73; Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1).
  10. ^ Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1); Thucydides, 1.87.1–3; Plutarch, Lycurgus 26.2–3.
  11. ^ Kennell 2010, pp. 111–112; Ste. Croix 1972, p. 125.
  12. ^ The Doric spelling of the more familiar demos, see LSJ, s.v. δῆμος.
  13. ^ Ehrenberg 1968, p. 32; Welwei 2006, s.v. Apella, Apellai; Gomme, Cadoux, and Rhodes 2015, s.v. ekklēsia; Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.1–7.1. For translations and discussions of the Great Rhetra, see: Esu 2024, pp. 126–127, 136–137; Nafissi 2010; Kennell 2010, pp. 45–50; Raaflaub and Wallace 2007, pp. 37–40; Ehrenberg 1968 pp. 32–36; Wade-Gery 1958. According to modern scholarship, the Rhetra did not, as Plutarch thought, establish Sparta's form of government, rather it described an existing form, see: Nafissi 2010; Esu 2024, p. 127: "Nafissi has demonstrated that the rhētra does not, in fact, outline the original foundation of the Spartan constitution; rather it is a piece of retrospective history elaborated and accepted by Archaic Spartan society".
  14. ^ Tyrtaeus fr. 4.5–9 Gerber; Raaflaub and Wallace 2007, p. 38; West 1974, pp. 184–186; West 1972, pp. 151–152; Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.4 (vv. 5–6); 7.12.6 (vv. 5–9). The text translated here is five verses of a ten verse fragment of Tyrtaeus, with vv. 5–6 coming from Plutarch (with minor substitutions from Diodorus) and vv. 7–9 coming from Diodorus, see van Hilten-Rutten 2020, pp. 72–73 with n. 3.
  15. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 104; Andrewes 1967, pp. 3–4; Herodotus, 5.39.2–40.1.
  16. ^ Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1); Luther 2006, p. 73.
  17. ^ Ste. Croix, p. 130. Plutarch, Agis 8.1, mentions Lysander's "election as ephor" in c. 243 BC.
  18. ^ Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b.31.
  19. ^ Luther 2006, p. 76; Herodotus, 6.58.6.
  20. ^ Plutarch, Lycurgus 26.1.
  21. ^ Plutarch, Lycurgus 26.2–3.
  22. ^ Wade-Gery 1958, p. 65; Andrewes 1967, p. 4; Diodorus Siculus, 11.50.
  23. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 4; Wade-Gery 1958, p. 65; Thucydides, 1.79-87.
  24. ^ Andrewes 1967, pp. 4–8; Ste. Croix, pp. 128–130.
  25. ^ Andrewes 1967, pp. 2–3; Aristotle, Politics 2.1272a.
  26. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 3; Aristotle, Politics 2.1273a. For a discussion of this problematic passage see Wade-Gery, pp. 51–54.
  27. ^ There are several other events in the historical record for which the involvement of the Assembly, although not explicitly attested, can be inferred, see: Ste. Crois 1972, p. 129; Kelly 1981, pp. 51–53.
  28. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 104; Andrewes 1967, pp. 3–4; Herodotus, 5.39.2–40.1.
  29. ^ Luther 2006, p. 75 #1; Herodotus, 7.134.
  30. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 4; Wade-Gery 1958, p. 65; Diodorus Siculus, 11.50
  31. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 4; Wade-Gery 1958, p. 65; Luther 2006, p. 76 #3; Thucydides, 1.79-87.
  32. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Luther 2006, p. 76 #4; Thucydides, 5.77–78.
  33. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Luther 2006, p. 76 #5; Thucydides, 6.88.10.
  34. ^ Luther 2006, p. 76 #6; Xenophon, Hellenica p. 111; compare Andrewes 1967, p. 6, which says the Assembly met in 404.
  35. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Luther 2006, p. 76 #6; Xenophon, Hellenica 2.2.19–20.
  36. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Luther 2006, p. 76, #7; Xenophon, Hellenica 2.4.38.
  37. ^ Luther 2006, p. 76 #8; compare: Unz 1986, p. 41, which suggests the summer of 401 for the Spartan king Agis's subsequent invasion of Ellis; Andrewes 1967, p. 6 ("probably in 402").
  38. ^ See Luther 2006, p. 76, n. 17.
  39. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Luther 2006, p. 76 #8; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.2.23.
  40. ^ Cartledge 1987, p. 164. The precise date depends on the chronology of the Elean War, see Cartledge 1987, p. 99.
  41. ^ Hamilton, p. xvii.
  42. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 112; Luther 2006, pp. 79, 81; Andrewes 1967, pp. 4–5; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.3.8.
  43. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Luther 2006, p. 76 #9; Xenophon, Hellenica 4.6.3.
  44. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Luther 2006, p. 76 #10; Xenophon, Hellenica 5.2.11–24.
  45. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; compare Xenophon, Hellenica p. 49.
  46. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Xenophon, Hellenica 5.2.33.
  47. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Xenophon, Hellenica 6.3.3, 18.
  48. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 6; Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.3.
  49. ^ Plutarch, Agis, 9.1 (gerousia "divided", assembly convened), 11.1 (proposal "rejected").
  50. ^ As noted above, modern scholarship understands the Rhetra as describing existing procedures, rather than having established new ones; see: Nafissi 2010; Esu 2024, p. 127.
  51. ^ As Kennell 2010, p. 48, describes it, meetings of the Assembly would "no longer [be] at the whim of the kings – an important advance from Homeric practice".
  52. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 112.
  53. ^ Welwei, s.v. Apella, Apellai; The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.v. ἀπελλάζω (p. 168); LSJ, s.v. ἀπελλάζω; Beekes 2009, s.v. ἀπέλλαι (p. 115); Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.2.
  54. ^ The word horas refers to any fixed but unspecified period of time such as an hour, day, month, year (etc.), see LSJ, s.v. ὥρα.
  55. ^ Nafissi 2010, pp. 94–95. The translation of horas ex horas used by Nafissi (and adopted by Esu 2024) is "regularly". See also: Kennell 2010, p. 46 ("from month to month"); Raaflaub and Wallace 2007, p. 37 ("from season to season"); Ehrenberg 1968, p. 32 ("from season to season").
  56. ^ So Perrin 1914's translation of Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.1.
  57. ^ Burkert 1975, p. 8; Nilsson 1967, p. 556; Nilsson 1906, pp. 464–465.
  58. ^ Kennel 2010, p. 48; Nafissi 2010, pp. 94–95; Luther 2006, pp 79–81; Ste. Croix 1972, p. 347.
  59. ^ Wade-Gery 1958, pp. 45–46; Burkert 1975, p. 10; Luther 2006, pp. 81, 86; Nafissi 2010, p. 94 n. 28; Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1).
  60. ^ Wade-Gery, p. 46; Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.2.
  61. ^ E.g. Cartledge (2015) s.v. Apellai (1), s.v. Apellai (2); Welwei, s.v. Apella, Apellai.
  62. ^ Wade-Gery 1958, p. 46; Herodotus, 6.57.2.
  63. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 112; Luther 2006, pp. 81, 86; Ste, Croix 1972, p. 347; Wade-Gery, p. 46. This scholiast is described by Ste. Crois as "a usually unhelpful source", while Wade-Gery says the comments of this scholiast "show little erudition, so that their testimony has not much weight". Although Wade-Gery says that the "meetings were surely monthly", he concludes, p. 47: "Whether the day of apellai was the New Moon or Full Moon or the Seventh, I see little hope of deciding."
  64. ^ Luther 2006, pp. 80–82, 86.
  65. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 112; Luther 2006, pp. 79, 81; Andrewes 1967, pp. 4–5; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.3.8. Xenophon's reference to a "Little Assembly" is otherwise unknown, see Dillery, p. 199 with n. 22.
  66. ^ Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.1.
  67. ^ Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.3–4.
  68. ^ Kennell, p. 112.
  69. ^ LSJ, s.v. σκιάς.
  70. ^ Pausanias, 3.12.10 with note.
  71. ^ Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1); Luther 2006, p. 73.
  72. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 104; Andrewes 1967, pp. 3–4; Herodotus, 5.39.2–40.1.
  73. ^ Xenophon Hellenica 2.2.19.
  74. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 112; Luther 2006, pp. 79, 81; Andrewes 1967, pp. 4–5; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.3.8.
  75. ^ Plutarch, Agis, 9.1 (gerousia "divided", assembly convened), 11.1 (proposal "rejected").
  76. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 13; Thucydides, 1.87.1–3.
  77. ^ Esu 2024, p. 127: There is "no consensus amongst scholars about the actual workings and the balance of power among deliberative bodies of ancient Sparta.".
  78. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 2.
  79. ^ Esu 2024, p. 137. According to Wade-Gery 1958, p. 39, it is "evident" that "Plutarch conceived the Rhetra as leaving to the [Spartan Assembly] wide powers of amendment" during the Archaic period.
  80. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, pp. 124–127.
  81. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, p. 127.
  82. ^ Esu 2024, p. 125.
  83. ^ Andrewes 1967, p. 2.
  84. ^ According to Kelly 1981, pp. 47–48, this was the "orthodox view" of Spartan politics as represented, for example, by (p. 47 n. 1): M.I. Finley, 'Sparta', Problèmes de la guerre en Grece ancienne, ed. J.-P. Vernant (Paris 1968), 143-60; D. Lewis, Sparta and Persia (Leiden 1977); and others (see p. 48 n. 3).
  85. ^ Aristotle, Politics 2.1272a.
  86. ^ LSJ, s.v. συνεπι-ψηφίζω.
  87. ^ Andrewes 1967, pp. 2–3.
  88. ^ A conflict which Andrewes 1967, p. 6 calls "irremediable".
  89. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, p. 127. See, for example: Andrewes 1967, pp. 6–7; Wade-Gery, 1958, pp. 51–54. However, according to Ste. Croix (p. 128): "Aristotle's picture in the Politics can be accepted as substantially true, provided we make two assumptions which are eminently reasonable and probable in themselves and are not contradicted by any evidence: first, that the Spartan Assembly could merely ratify, or refuse to ratify, proposals put to it, but could not in theory introduce amendments to them, let alone new resolutions of its own; and secondly, that individual Spartiates had no absolute right to speak, but could do so only if they were invited to speak by the presiding ephor". For a discussion of Andrewes' views, and Ste. Croix's critique see Kelly 1981, pp. 48—58.
  90. ^ Wade-Gery 1958, p. 65; Andrewes 1967, p. 6.
  91. ^ Wade-Gery 1958, p. 65.
  92. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, p. 129.
  93. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, p. 128.
  94. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 112. For a response to Ste. Croix 1972's critique of Andrewes 1967, on the issue of the quality of debate in the Assembly, see Kelly 1981, pp. 49–58, which concludes (p. 58): "Sessions of the assembly cannot have been as lifeless as has been maintained if the ordinary Spartiates were alert and suffused with a sense of their own importance and expected to be persuaded", as Kelly supposes they were.
  95. ^ Kennell 2010, p. 111.
  96. ^ Esu 2024, p. 27.
  97. ^ Luther 2006, p. 73.
  98. ^ Esu 2024, p. 27.
  99. ^ Schulz 2009, p. 335 n. 9: "Ob die Volksversammlung in Sparta Apella oder Ekklesia hieß, ist umstritten".
  100. ^ Ste Croix 1972, p. 346. See for example Ehrenberg 1968, pp. 31–33, 46, 383 n. 14.
  101. ^ See for example: Cartledge 2015, s.v. Apellai (1): "At Sparta, the festival was monthly, on the seventh, and it was on this day that the stated meetings of the Spartan assembly were held. From this coincidence has arisen the erroneous modern notion that the assembly was called the apella. Actually, its name was the ekklēsia, as is corroborated by the existence of a ‘little ekklesia’ (mikra ekklēsia: Xen. Hell. 3. 3. 8)"; Kennell 2010, p. 111: "The fourth main pillar of the Classical Spartan constitution was the popular Assembly, called the Ekklesia, not the Apella as once thought."
  102. ^ See also Welwei 2000.
  103. ^ Luther 2006, p. 74; Nafissi 2010, p. 95 n. 28.
  104. ^ For an examination of the available ancient texts in which the Spartan's popular assembly is explicitly named, see Luther 2006. According to Luther (p. 75), while noting that mentions of the Assembly in ancient sources are relatively rare, and often hidden behind such expressions as Lakedaimonioi, ('the Lacedaemonians' i.e. Spartans), the polis ('city') or to koinón ('the body politic'), says that to his knowledge there are only fifteen explicit mentions, from the fifth century BC onwards, two by Herodotus, four by Thucydides, and nine by Xenophon, which he then lists and discusses.
  105. ^ Welwei 2006, s.v. Apella, Apellai; Ste. Croix, p. 347; Wade-Gery p. 44.
  106. ^ Beekes 2003, p. 9.
  107. ^ Welwei 2006, s.v. Apella, Apellai; Burkert 1975, p. 9; Wade-Gery p. 44; Hesychius, s.v. apellai (Latte, p. 272, 5994): "ἀπελλαι· 'σηκοί, ἐκκλησίαι, ἀρχαιρεσίαι".
  108. ^ The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.vv. ἐκκλησία, ἀρχαιρεσίαι; LSJ, s.vv. ἐκκλησία, ἀρχαιρεσία. Hesychius's inclusion of the word sekoi, which can refer to various kinds of enclosures (see: The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.v. σηκός; LSJ, s.v. σηκός), is puzzling. According to Versnel 1993, p. 321 n. 106, in light of Heschius's explanation of the apellai in terms of assemblies, sekoi might be interpreted as referring to either the entire enclosure within which such assemblies were held, or the subdivisions of such assemblies into precincts (e.g. voting precincts). While one meaning of the word sekos is 'sacred enclosure, precinct', the first meaning of the word sekos is as an enclosure for sheep, goats or cattle (see; The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.v. σηκός (p. 1263); LSJ, s.v. σηκός), and some scholars (according to Versnel, scholars attempting to connect Apollo with herding) have interpeted Heschius's sekoi as enclosures of this type (i.e 'pens' or 'folds'), an interpretation rejected by Burkert 1975, p. 12. Luther 2006, p. 82, suggests the following interpretation of Hesychius's gloss: that the Apellai festival was celebrated in sacred precincts (sekoi) where popular assemblies (ekklesia) were held, at which elections of officials took place (archairesiai).
  109. ^ Welwei 2006, s.v. Apella, Apellai; Burkert 1975, pp. 9–10; Ste. Croix 1972, p. 347; Wade-Gery 1958, p. 44; Labyad inscription A 31–32, 36, B 7, 8, D 3, 44 (Rhodes, and Osborne, pp. 2, 4, 6); Gytheion inscriptions: IG V,1 1144.20–21, 1146.40–41, for which, see also: Hansen 2021, p. 27; Giannakopoulos 2017, p. 221 n. 10.
  110. ^ Beekes 2009, s.v. ἀπέλλαι.
  111. ^ Welwei, 2006, s.v. Apella, Apellai; Wade-Gery, pp. 44–47; The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, s.v. ἀπελλάζω; LSJ, s.v. ἀπελλάζω; Beekes 2009, s.v. ἀπέλλαι.
  112. ^ See, for example, Welwei 2006, s.v. Apella, Apellai. This would be analogous with the situation at Athens where the name 'Ekklesia' for its popular assembly apparently derived from the common noun ekklesia ('assembly'). Luther 2006, p. 74, describes support for Apella in older research as widespread ("verbreitet"), and among more recent scholars, in addition to Welwei, cites (p. 74 n. 9) two others: Ehrenberg 1973, pp. 391–392 and Thommen 2003, p. 103, who favor Apella.
  113. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, pp. 346–247; Luther 2006, p. 74.
  114. ^ Welwei 1997, p. 242.
  115. ^ According to Ste. Croix (p. 346), Thucydides here has preserved "verbatim, in the Doric dialect" an official resolution of the Spartan Assembly, and describes this text as "the most important and indeed decisive" evidence in support of the name Ekklesia, concluding that: "In the absence of any strong evidence to the contrary, this alone might be allowed to settle the matter". However, Welwei 1997 (p. 242), questions whether Thucydides' text is, in fact, a verbatim account ("Es fragt sich daher, ob die zitierte Einleitungsformel zu den spartanischen Friedensvorschlägen wirklich eine wörtliche Wiedergabe eines in Sparta formulierten Schriftstückes darstellt und insofern urkendichen Wert im heutigen Sinne hat"). Welwei, although agreeing (p. 243) that the use here of the Doric dialect suggests that Thucydides had seen certain written documents ("Der dorische Dialekt in Kap. 5,77 läßt zwar darauf schließen, daß Thukydides bestimmte schriftliche Unterlagen gesehen hat"), argues that this does not necessarily mean he had access to an original Spartan document ("Dies besagt aber noch nicht, daß er in Sparta selbst Einsicht in ein diesbezügliches Original oder eine wortgetreue Kopie desselben nehmen konnte"). In any case, according to Ste. Croix (p. 346), Thucydides "as a rule is very careful to use technical terms correctly", while Luther 2006 (p. 79) argues that the use of the Doric dialect indicates the intension of authenticity ("steht hier doch durch die Verwendung des lakonischen Dialekts außer Zweifel, dass sich Thukydides (oder seine Quelle) darum bemühte, ein Höchstmaß an Authentizität zu vermitteln"). Luther goes on to argue that, even if Thucydides did not know the Spartan Assembly's name, given the close relations between the Athenian and Spartan elites, and the fact of the frequent occurrence of Athenian speakers addressing the Spartan Assembly, the name was familiar in Athens, and thus it would not have been difficult for Thucydides to have ascertained ("Thukydides in Athen nicht allzu schwer gefallen sein kann, den Namen der spartanischen Volksversammlung zu ermitteln").
  116. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, p. 347.
  117. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, p. 346; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.2.23, 4.6.3. See also Xenophon, Hellenica 5.2.11, where "the ephors ... brought them [the ambassadors] before the Lacedaemonian assembly [ekklesia]".
  118. ^ Xenophon, Hellenica 3.3.8, here translated as "the Little [μικρὰν] Assembly [ἐκκλησίαν], as it was called".
  119. ^ The translator's note to "Little Assembly" (p. 221) says "The reference is uncertain".
  120. ^ Ste. Croix 1972, p. 347; Luther 2006, p. 79.
  121. ^ Luther 2006, p. 86.
  122. ^ According to Nafissi 2010, p. 95 n. 28.
  123. ^ Nafissi 2010, p. 95 n. 27. For some of the many (according to Luther 2006, p. 74: "zahlreiche") scholars adopting this view, see Luther 2006 p. 74 n. 12, which, in addition to Wade-Gery 1958, Andrewes 1967, and Ste. Croix 1972, cites: Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover 1970, p. 134; Flaig 1993, p. 139, n. 1; Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1994, p. 258; Link 1994, p. 71, with n. 165; Ruzé 1997, p. 134; Richer 1998, p. 96, n. 18; pp. 192-193, n. 234; Fornis 2003, p. 44; Lévy 2003, p. 21.

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Andrewes, A. (1967), "The Government of Classical Sparta", in Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday, Barnes & Noble, 1967. Internet Archive.
  • Andrewes, A. (1970), p. 134 in A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. 4: Books V25-VII A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K. J. Dover (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1970. ISBN 9780198141785.
  • The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, edited by J. Diggle et al, Cambridge University Press, 2021 ISBN 978-0-521-82680-8.
  • Nafissi, Massimo (2010), "The Great Rhetra (Plut. Lyc. 6): A Retrospective and Intentional Construct?", in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Lin Foxhall, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, and Nino Luraghi (eds.), Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010.
  • Raaflaub, Kurt A. and Rober W. Wallace, '"People's Power" and Egalitarian Trends in Archaic Greece', in Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, Eds.: Kurt A. Raaflaub, Josiah Ober, Robert W. Wallace, University of California Press, 2007. ISBN 9780520245624.
  • Rhodes (2006), s.v. Ekklesia, in Brill’s New Pauly Online, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and, Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry, published online: 2006.
  • Unz, Ron K. (1986), "The Chronology of the Elean War", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1 (1986), pp. 29–42.
  • van Hilten-Rutten 2020, "Tyrtaeus the Lawgiver? Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus on Tyrtaeus fr. 4", in The Reception of Greek Lyric Poetry in the Ancient World: Transmission, Canonization and Paratext, eds. Bruno Currie, and Ian Rutherford, Brill, Linden, Boston, 2020. ISBN 978-90-04-41451-8.
  • Welwei, Karl-Wilhelm (1997), "Apella oder Ekklesia? Zur Bezeichnung der spartanischen Volksversammlung", in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 140 (1997), H. 3/4, 242–249. JSTOR 41234282.