the general assembly of the citizens at Athens, in which they met for the
direct exercise of their sovereign power. Whether certain periodical
meetings of the people, regularly recurring at appointed times, were
ordained by the legislation of Solon, is unknown. It is however probable
that the only assemblies thus fixed in early times were for the election of
) and the
) whether of
magistrates or of laws; while questions of public policy were discussed at
meetings summoned for the purpose. In the times about which we have fuller
information there was at first a regular assembly in each prytany, and
therefore ten in the year; these were called κύριαι
By degrees the number of these rose to four in
each prytany, which, as being νόμιμοι
were probably held on days fixed beforehand, though
we are not in a position to discover with any certainty which days these
were in the individual prytanies. The name κυρία
however, remained for a long time confined to the
first regular assembly in each prytany, until later on it was transferred to
the three others as well (Schömann, Antiq.
E. T.). Some discrepancies in the accounts are probably to be explained as
referring to different times. Thus Aristotle expressly states that there
were four regular assemblies in each prytany,
one of which was called κυρία
Harpocrat. s. v. κυρία ἐκκλησία
: and so
Pollux, 8.95, 96); while several grammarians declare, not less explicitly,
that there were three in each month,
(Photius, s. v. κυρία ἐκκλησία
: Schol. Aristoph. Ach. 19
; Ulpian on Dem. c.
p. 706.20). These last-named authorities no doubt had in
view the times after B.C. 306, when the number of tribes was raised from ten
to twelve, and a prytany and a month became the same thing (BOULÉ, p. 313b;
p. 44); and the
extension of the name κυρία
to all the
ordinary assemblies is probably to be referred to the same period (
“not many years after Aristotle's time,” Schömann,
p. xxxii.). These assemblies would thus
be held on an average about once in ten days, whether under the earlier or
later system; but the scholiast Ulpian (ad
l.c.), in fixing [p. 1.698]
to the eleventh, twentieth, and thirtieth of each month, goes decidedly too
far, as Schömann has proved (Assemblies,
cf. Perrot, Essai,
p. 37). Extraordinary meetings were
specially convened upon any sudden emergency, and were called σύγκλητοι
Poll. 8.116, Hesych.), because messengers had to be sent round to give
notice to the country people; κατακαλεῖν
being a technical word for summoning non-residents or out-voters. Besides
these messengers (συνεκάλουν τινὲς
Schol. Dem. F. L.
p. 100 a) we find a
Dem. de Cor.
p. 284.169) summoning to a ούγκλητος ἐκκλησία,
doubtless the city voters
The place in which the assemblies were originally held was the Old Agora
Harpocrat. s. v. Πάνδημος Ἀφροδίτη
This is identified by C. Wachsmuth (Stadt Athen,
and Gilbert (1.270) as the spot afterwards occupied by the Odeum of Herodes
Atticus, a smaller site than the Agora of later times, lying to the east of
it and more under the shelter of the Acropolis. Afterwards they were
transferred to the Pnyx, which throughout the great period of Athens in the
fifth and fourth centuries B.C. was certainly the usual place of meeting
; Aristoph. Ach. 20
42, Δῆμος πυκνίτης
: ib. 750-1; Vesp.
283; Dem. de Cor.
244.55, p. 285.169). For more than a century past the site of the Pnyx has
been placed on the escarped eastern portion of a low hill to the west of the
Areiopagus (Dict. Geogr.
1.282, 283, with plan of the hill
and view of the Bema; Wordsworth, Athens and Attica,
but quite recently the traditional view has been called in question, chiefly
on the evidence of inscriptions, and the latest authorities declare that no
exact determination is at present possible (E. Curtius, Att.
1.23-46; C. Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen,
ff.; Schömann, Antiq.
1.380, E. T.; Gilbert, l.c.
). It was at any rate not far from the Agora
(Aristoph. Ach. 21
), on a height
(ἀναβαίνειν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,
[Dem.] c. Aristog.
i. p. 772.9; 775.20; τᾶς ὁ δῆμος ἄνω καθῆτο,
p. 285.169; cf. Aristoph. Kn.
) commanding an extensive view of the Acropolis, city, and port
(προπύλαια ταῦτα, ὁ Παρθενών, στοαί,
Dem. c. Androt.
p. 617.76, copied
by the author of the speech περὶ
p. 174.28). The Bema, whether rightly identified or
not, was a stone platform with an ascent of steps, cut out of the solid
rock, whence it is sometimes called ὁ
(Aristoph. Peace 680
ὅστις κρατεῖ νῦν τοῦ λίθου τοῦ ᾿ν τῇ
); and the name Pnyx was explained by the ancients
παρὰ τὴν τῶν λίθων πυκνότητα,
which, as Schömann remarks, they would certainly not have done had
not the substructions which make the place level led them to the derivation
(cf. L. and S. s. v. Πνύξ
). After the
great theatre of Dionysus was built the assemblies began to be held in it;
and this was the rule for the first meeting after the Dionysia and some
other festivals (Dem. c. Mid.
p. 517.9; Aeschin. F.
§ 61). For the discussion of naval matters they also met
in the Peiraeus, or in the Dionysiac theatre at Munychia (Dem. F.
p. 359.60=67; Lys. c. Agorat.
§ 55; Thuc. 8.93
). They were held in the Agora, i. e.
the larger Agora of later times, in cases of ostracism and, as Curtius and
Gilbert think, all νόμοι ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρί,
or laws affecting an individual,
such as ἄδεια,
voting citizenship to
foreigners or restoring it to ἄτιμοι
these requiring the votes of 6000 citizens given by ballot (cf. ADEIA; ATIMIA, p. 243 b;
p. 443 b;
and for the phrase νόμος
for which Demosthenes has also κατ̓ ἀνδρός,
Dem. c. Timocr.
719.59). In the Macedonian period the theatre superseded the Pnyx, which was
retained only for the elections (ἀρχαιρεσίαι,
Hesych. sub voce
: Poll. 8.132, 133): in late
inscriptions we find traces of alternate meetings in the city and the
Peiraeus (C. I. A.
2.401, 417, 459, 466).
The right of convening the people generally vested in the Prytanes [BOULÉ]; but in cases of sudden
emergency, and especially during wars, the strategi also had the power of
calling extraordinary meetings; that is to say, they had the power of
directing the prytanes to do so. That the consent of the senate also was
required, rests only on “inserted documents” of little
authority (Dem. de Cor.
p. 238.37; p. 250.75).
The four ordinary meetings of every prytany were always convened by the
prytanes, who not only gave a previous notice (προγράφειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
) of the day of assembly, and
published a programme of the subjects to be discussed, but also, as it
appears, sent a crier round to collect the citizens (συνάγειν τὸν δῆμον,
Pollux, 8.95; Harpocrat. s. v.
: the πρόγραμμα,
[Dem.] c. Aristog.
p. 772.9). The mode of summons to the σύγκλητος
has been already noticed in explaining its name.
The case of Pericles on the first invasion of Attica by Archidamus is
peculiar: Thucydides says, ἐκκλησίαν οὐκ ἐποίει
αὐτῶν οὐδὲ ξύλλογον οὐδένα
(2.22), i. e. he convened no
assembly in his capacity of strategus (cf. 2.59). But to effect his object
of stifling discussion he must further have stopped the ordinary assemblies;
and it is conjectured that a majority of the strategi, which Pericles
doubtless commanded, could restrain the action of the prytanes
p. 62; Grote, ch. 48, 4.258).
No other instance of the kind is on record; and it may have been merely a
piece of unconstitutional dictation on Pericles' part. On the actual day of
assembly a flag was probably hoisted as a signal, and struck when business
began, as in the case of the senate (BOULÉ, p. 313 a;
Suid. s. v.
). Six magistrates called
with thirty assistants,
checked the attendance at the assembly the words of Pollux, τοὺς μὴ ἐκκλησιάζοντας ἐζημίουν καὶ τοὺς
(8.104), are explained by
Schömann (p. 381) and Gilbert (p. 272) to mean that they punished
by a fine those who tried to get the pay and shirk the work, while they
excluded unqualined persons. The Athenians were apt to linger too long over
their marketing in the Agora, and the following measures were resorted to in
the time of Aristophanes (Aristoph. Ach.
, τὸ σχοίνιον φεύγουσι τὸ
: cf. Eccles.
378). While some of the
Lexiarchi stood at the entrance of the place of assembly with lists in their
hands (the so-called ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ
whence probably the name), others [p. 1.699]
directed the police (Σκύθαι
) to surround the Agora with a rope coloured
with red chalk, so that only the road leading to the Pnyx remained open, and
into this road they drove the citizens. As a further inducement to attend to
business the τοξόται
were sometimes ordered
to shut up the marketstalls (πρατήρια,
Phot. s. v. σχοίνιον μεμιλτωμένον
who were “tarred” with the rope counted as late comers, and no
doubt forfeited their ούμβολον,
they actually remained in the assembly; hence there was a rush to avoid it.
On the view favoured by Gilbert, that the sum paid away each day was
limited, the use of the coloured rope becomes unmeaning. Any person who,
having been let through and having received the σύμβολον,
tried to break away, was doubtless liable to a
fine several times the amount of the day's pay. This passage of Aristophanes
clearly implies that, as already stated, the Pnyx must have been close to
the Agora. The Lexiarchi did not themselves draw up the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον,
as stated in L. and S.
(ed. 7); this was the duty of the demarchs (DEMUS
p. 616 b
place of assembly was further enclosed with hurdles (γέρρα
) until the termination of the business to which it was
thought advisable not to admit strangers (Dem. c. Neaer.
1375.90). The burning of these γέρρα
fire-beacon rests on a false reading (ἐνεπίμπρασαν,
Dem. de Cor.
284.169); the Agora being in a hollow, the act would have been both useless
and dangerous; and ἀνεπετάννυσαν
most probable correction (Class. Rev.
2.95 b). Here the use
of the γέρρα
seems to have been to exclude
the people from the Agora and drive them to the Pnyx. Even when not admitted
within the precincts, we (sometimes at least) find foreigners listening and
expressing their sentiments (ἀνεβόησεν ὁ δῆμος
καὶ ὅσοι ξένοι περιέστασαν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,
A quite sufficient inducement to attend the assembly, with the poorer
classes, was the μισθὸς ἐκκλησιαστικὸς
pay which they received for it (Boeckh, P. E.
p. 228 ff.=
3 1.290 ff.). The originator of
this practice was one Callistratus, whom Boeckh proposes to identify with
the son of Empedus, who perished in Sicily B.C. 413. It probably dated from
the successful early years of the Peloponnesian war, and Pericles, to whom
is ascribed, had most likely
nothing to do with this latest fruit of democracy. Gilbert (p. 273) places
it “some years before the archonship of Eucleides” (B.C. 403);
but the “some years” can hardly have been fewer than ten or
twelve, considering the turn which the war had then taken. The payment
itself, at first an obolus, was afterwards raised to three by a popular
favourite, Agyrrhius of Collytus (Harpocrat. s. v. Ἀγύρριος
: cf. Dem. c. Timocr.
The increase took place but a short time before the
of Aristophanes (see vv.
300 ff.), the representation of which is fixed, within a year
either way, at 392 B.C. The money was paid by the Thesmothetae
290) at the close of the proceedings, and in
exchange for a σύμβολον
or ticket given to
those who arrived in time; the latter may have been of more perishable
materials than the dicastic or bouleutic σύμβολα,
which were of metal, and had to last a year [BOULÉ, p. 313 a;
p. 627 b
). This payment, however, was not made to the
richer classes, who attended the assemblies gratis, and are therefore called
200 Meineke ap. Ath.
f). The same word οἰκόσιτος
is applied generally to a person who receives no pay
for his services.
The right of attending and voting was enjoyed by all citizens of full age
(generally supposed to be twenty, certainly not less than eighteen: Xen. Mem. 3.6
, § 1; DOKIMASIA
) and not labouring
under any atimia or loss of civil rights. They were either (1) natural-born
(φύσει καὶ γένει
) citizens, born in
lawful wedlock of parents both Athenians (ἐξ ἀστῆς
is the formula, c. Neaer.
1365.60; 1376.92; 1381.106: for the question of νοθεία,
p. 444 b
); or (2) δημοποίητοι,
presented with the freedom of the
state, and enrolled in a deme, phratry, and tribe. The latter, however, were
not qualified to hold the office of archon or any priesthood until the
second generation (ib. 1376.92;. 1380.104). Men above sixty may have been
iii. l=p. 1275, 15), but were certainly not
excluded. The orator Aristophon of Azenia, who lived 100 years all but a
month (Schol. ad
§ 64), was in the thick of the political fight,
impeaching and impeached, till long past eighty (Dem. c.
p. 703.11; Aeschin. c. Ctes.
A. Schaefer, Demosth. u. seine Zeit,
The commencement of the proceedings was marked by a lustration or
purification of the place where the assembly was held. Sucking-pigs
) were sacrificed and carried
round, and the limits thus marked were called κάθαρμα,
“the purified space” (Aristoph.
). These victims were called περίστια,
probably from περὶ τὴν
: they were preceded by a religious functionary called
128), and their blood was sprinkled about the place.
We are not required to believe, with the Scholiast on the former passage,
that it was sprinkled on the seats as well. Then followed an offering of
incense, and a solemn prayer, repeated by a herald at the dictation of an
including a curse (ἀρά
) on the enemies of
the state, especially on evil counsellors or those who were bribed to
deceive the people (Dem. F. L.
p. 363.70=79; cf. de Cor.
p. 319.282; c. Aristocr.
653.97; Aeschin. c. Timarch.
§ 23; a comic parody of
the prayer Aristoph. Thes. 331
these ceremonies was added, in later times, an announcement by the prytanes
that the sacrifices had been duly offered, that the omens were favourable,
and that there was no sign of the displeasure of the gods (Theophr.
21; C. I. A.
2.417, 459). Business
then began; and the first matter taken in hand was said to be πρῶτον μετὰ τὰ ἱερά
(Decret. ap. Dem.
p. 706.21). So of persons to whom audience was
given, πρώτοις μετὰ τὰ ἱερά
1.36; 2.52 c; 164). The presiding officer was, in the
earlier times, the Epistates of the Prytanes, afterwards the Epistates of
the nine Proedri; but the function called χρηματίζειν,
“bring a matter forward” (including therefore the order of the
different agenda), is [p. 1.700]
expressly attributed to the
proedri and perhaps also to the prytanes (Dem. c. Mid.
517.9 (cf. the “law” in § 8]; Aeschin. c.
l.c.). For the Prytanes, the Proedri, and the
Epistatae, see BOULÉ, p. 310 b;
for the progress of a bill through the senate,
until it reached the people in the form of a Probouleuma, pp. 311 b,
The date of
the innovation by which the Second Epistates was appointed, the powers of
the prytanes (i. e. of a single tribe) curtailed and those of the proedri
(representing the other tribes) enlarged, was placed by Meier between 378
and 369 B.C. (p. 310 b
). The latest evidence
from inscriptions tends to throw it back to the beginning of the period
named: the archonship of Nausinicus, B.C. 378-7, already memorable for other
important reforms, was not improbably the actual year of this constitutional
change (Gilbert, Staatsalterth.
1.257 n.). Under this new
system the choosing by lot of the proedri, and of the epistates from among
them, was also a part of the preliminary business of each sitting.
There was a law of Solon, μηδὲν ἐᾶν ἀπροβούλευτον
εἰς ἐκκλησίαν εἰσφέρεσθαι
): as regards other matters, the motion could consist only
in a demand to the senate to draw up a probouleuma and then refer it to the
assembly. Hence the first step in the discussion was the reading of the
probouleuma by a herald. It might so happen that the senate had come to no
conclusion of its own, but had merely referred the question to the people;
and in these cases an explanatory statement might also be made by the
prytanes (Dem. de Cor.
p. 285.170). The reading
of the probouleuma was immediately followed by the προχειροτονία,
a show of hands on the previous question,
whether the sovereign people desired the proposed measure to be further
discussed, or were prepared to accept it at once (BOULÉ, p. 312 a
The privilege of addressing the assembly was not confined to any class or age
among those who had the right to be present; all, without any distinction,
were invited to do so by the proclamation (τίς
) which was made by the herald as soon
as the προχειροτονία
had shown that there
was to be a debate. According to a law of Solon those persons who were above
fifty years of age were called upon to speak first (Aeschin. c.
§ § 2, 4; c. Timarch.
§ 23); but in more democratic times this regulation had become
obsolete (Dem. de Cor.
p. 285.170; Aristoph. Ach. 45
130). The person “in possession of the
House” mounted the bema and put on a wreath of myrtle, as a sign
that he was for the moment a representative of the people, like the
bouleutae and the archons (Aristoph. Eccl.
). The law of Solon
likewise required all speakers to keep to the “question,” to
discuss one thing at a time, to refrain from abuse and scurrility. Aeschines
twice refers to this as the law περὶ τῆς τῶν
§ 34); and what purports to be the
text of it is given in § 35 of the latter speech; but he complains
§ 4) that nothing could check the
of the orators of his time,
and in the companion passage alludes to a recent law of increased stringency
on this subject, which had been impeached by Timarchus and others in the
interests of disorder. The behaviour of the people does not appear to have
been any better than that of the orators, if we may trust the opening speech
of the Acharnians.
The duty of maintaining order devolved on
the prytanes (Aeschines adds the proedri, see below), assisted by the
or policemen (Aristoph. Kn. 665
); in later times by the
members of a tribe chosen by lot for this purpose; later still, in the
Macedonian period, by the ἔφηβοι.
Each of these last two regulations suggests a few further remarks. The
selection of a tribe to assist in keeping order is fixed to a date just
before the speech against Timarchus, B.C. 345; it was in consequence of a
“free fight” in which Timarchus himself had been
particularly conspicuous (προσέθεσθε καινὸν νόμον
μετὰ τὸ καλὸν παγκράτιον, ὃ οὗτος ἐπαγκρατίασεν ἐν τῇ
§ 33). The new law was καθ̓ ἑκάστην ἐκκλησίαν ἀποκληροῦν φυλὴν ἐπὶ τὸ
βῆμα, ἥ τις προεδρεύσει
: impeached by Timarchus as
§ 35; but
though not reversed, it failed of its object; τῆς δὲ
τῶν ῥητόρων ἀκοσμίας οὐκέτι κρατεῖν δύνανται οὔθ̓ οἱ νόμοι
οὔθ̓ οἱ πρυτάνεις οὔθ̓ οἱ πρόεδροι οὔθ̓ ἡ προεδρεύουσα
φυλή, τὸ δέκατον μέρος τῆς πόλεως
§ 4. fifteen years later). A. Schaefer thought that
the tribe thus designated was a tribe of the senate, i. e. fifty other
senators to assist the prytanes (Demosth.
2.291); but the
phrase τὸ δέκατον μέρος τῆς πόλεως,
in the Timarchus (l.c.
) καθῆσθαι κελεύει τοὺς φυλέτας
), makes it tolerably clear that a tribe of the
Ecclesia is intended. The correctness of the word προεδρεύειν
in the two passages of Aeschines has been justly
doubted (Gilbert, p. 273 n.); the Ephebi, when they lent their aid, are said
(C. I. A.
2.466) or προσεδρεύειν
(ib. 470). Either of
these words would be more appropriate: for προσεδρεύειν,
“to be in regular attendance,” cf. Dem. de
p. 313.258, a well-known passage; and there is a further
objection not hitherto pointed out. It seems to us very improbable that, at
a time when the relative positions of the prytanes and the proedri had
lately been altered in favour of the latter by the institution of the Second
Epistates, a tribe discharging such humble functions should have been called
by the dignified name ἡ προεδρεύουσα
whereas if προσεδρεύουσα
was the word, it
was sure to be altered by the copyists. The employment of the ἔφηβοι
for the same purpose is proved by the
inscriptions already referred to, but belongs to a later period. The ephebi,
youths between eighteen and twenty, were now perhaps for the first time
formally admitted to the assembly, and thus initiated into public business
while charged with police duties; and their presence in earlier times,
mentioned as exceptional, may really have been intrusive or on sufferance
only. Among the “humours” of these turbulent meetings we find
the bawling down of obnoxious speakers--against which some, however, were
proof (Aeschin. c. Timarch.
§ 33); in extreme cases,
they might be dragged down from the bema by authority (Aristoph. Kn. 665
); on the other hand, the
storming of the presidential chair itself is hinted at (Lex ap. Aeschin. l.c.
After the speakers had concluded, any one was at liberty to propose a decree
); [p. 1.701]
though usually the same speaker who had carried the probouleuma through
the senate moved the psephisma before the people (expressed by ὁ δεῖνα εἶπε
). There was, however, no
restriction on the moving of amendments or riders; they might be drawn up in
the assembly itself with the aid of the secretary (γραμματεύς
); and were introduced with the formula ὁ δεῖνα εἶτε: τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθάπερ τῇ
or καθάπερ ὁ δεῖνα,
followed by the words of the amendment (cf. Plat. Gorg.
B, with Thompson's note; C. I. A.
1.38, &c.). As
between the original motion and any amendment the order of proceeding does
not appear; probably there was a discretionary power in the presiding
officers. Before, however, the question could be put, it had to be submitted
to the proper authority to determine whether it contained anything
unconstitutional. This authority was, in early times, the Areiopagus, which
thus exercised a very real check upon the progress of democracy; after
Pericles, the νομοφύλακες
till the time of
the Thirty; from the archonship of Eucleides onward, the Areiopagus again,
but with its powers greatly curtailed [AREIOPAGUS
]. If there appeared to be no legal
obstacle, the psephisma was next read to the people in order to allow a vote
to be taken. Even at this stage the Epistates had the legal right of
stopping the voting on his own unsupported authority, a right which,
however, might be overborne by threats and clamours (Aeschin. de F.
§ 84). But he was of course responsible for his use
of this privilege, and might be proceeded against by ἔνδειξις,
or even the more summary ἀπαγωγή
32 B). There was one
case, on the other hand, in which he was absolutely forbidden to put the
question to the vote under penalty of atimia: this was when a debtor asked
for the remission of a public debt (Lex ap. Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 716.50). Any duly qualified citizen might also object to the question
being put, by engaging on oath to bring the motion, as illegal, under the
cognisance of a court of law, by means of the so-called γραφὴ παρανόμων.
Such a declaration, when made,
necessitated a postponement of the voting; and, like every other oath
involving postponement, was called ὑπωμοσία.
The like declaration might, however, still be made if
the vote on the matter had already been taken, and the people had approved
it. It had then the effect of suspending the operation of the decree until
the court had given its decision. Finally, the mover himself might withdraw
his motion before it was put to the vote, if he had in any way become
convinced of its unsuitability during the debate (Plut. Arist. 3
). The form in which the votes were taken was in
or show of hands [CHEIROTONIA
]; the ballot
) was only used
where the personal interests of individuals were concerned, i. e. in cases
mentioned above as
occasions on which the assembly met in the Agora instead of the Pnyx. With
respect to the actual mode of voting by ballot in the ecclesia we have no
certain information; but it was probably the same as in the courts of law,
by means of black and white pebbles put into urns called καδίσκοι
Aristoph. Wasps 981
; PSEPHOS). To “put the question,” it
should be added, is nearly always ἐπιψηφίζειν,
even when the χειροτονία
and not the ψῆφος
the mode of voting; but ἐπιχειροτονεῖν
occurs, though rarely, in this sense (Dem. c. Timocr.
712.39; 727.84). In one passage we find the chairman called simply πρόεδρος,
instead of his proper title ἐπιστάτης τῶν προέδρων
(τίς ὁ ταῦτα ἐπιψηφίσας πρόεδρος,
The determination or decree of the people was called a Psephisma (ψήφισμα
), and only remained in force a year,
like the resolution of the senate which bore the same name; to become a
it had to pass the ordeal of the
[NOMOTHETAE]. The form for drawing up the Psephisma varied in
different ages; but, apart from unessential differences, two constant normal
types may be distinguished. The more ancient dates from the time when the
Epistates of the Prytanes (then the sole Epistates) put the question to the
people; the latter belongs to the period when this function had passed to
the Epistates of the Proedri. An example of the earlier form is as follows:
Ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ,
Κεκροπὶς ἐπρυτάνευε, Μνησίθεος ἐγραμμάτευε, Εὐπείθης
ἐπεστάτει, Καλλίας εἶπεν
: then follows the resolution,
in the infinitive dependent on εἶπεν
ἀποδοῦναι τοῖς θεοῖς τὰ χρήματα τὰ
(C. I. A.
1.32 = Boeckh,
3 2.42 ff.). Another, dating
from the Peloponnesian war, is C. I. A.
1.40 = Boeckh,
3 2.499. Sometimes the date is
given more precisely: ἐπὶ τοῦ δεῖνα ἄρχοντος
καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς βουλῆς ᾗ πρὼτος ὁ δεῖνα ἐγραμμάτευε
(on this secretary κατὰ πρυτανείαν,
BOULÉ, p. 311 b
). The later form is this: ἐπὶ
Νικοδώρου ἄρχοντος, ἐπὶ τῆς Κεκροπίδος ἕκτης πρυτανείας,
Γαμηλιῶνος ἑνδεκάτῃ, ἕκτῃ καὶ εἰκοστῇ τῆς πρυτανείας,
ἐκκλησία: τῶν προέδρων ἐπεψήφισεν Ἀριστοκράτης Ἀριστοδήμου
Οἰναῖος καὶ συμπρόεδροι, Θρασυκλῆς Ναυσιστράτου Θριάσιος
We now come to the dismissal of the assembly, the order for which was given
by the prytanes through a herald (οἱ γὰρ πρυτάνεις
λύουσι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,
Aristoph. Ach. 173
). Meetings usually
began early in the morning (ib. 20), and were not continued after sunset; if
the business were then unfinished, there was an adjournment to the next day.
But an assembly was broken up by a so-called διοσημία
or sign from heaven, such as thunder, lightning, rain,
storm, eclipse of the sun, or earthquake (Aristoph. Ach. 170
579 ff:; Thuc. 5.45
Suid. s. v. διοσημία
). Of course it was only in comedy that public business
could be interrupted at the caprice of any individual who chose to say that
he had felt a drop of rain: in Greece, as at Rome, these signs had their
authorised interpreters, who at Athens were the EXEGETAE (q. v
The four ordinary assemblies of every prytany had each their specially
appropriated subjects for discussion, or “order of the day.” In
the first assembly, the κυρία ἐκκλησία
properly so called, the ἐπιχειροτονία τῶν
or confirmation of all government officials was held; i.
e. an inquiry into their conduct, according to the result of which they were
either confirmed in office or deposed. On the same occasion the εἰσαγγελίαι
or extraordinary informations for
offences against the state were laid before the [p. 1.702]
people, as well as matters relating to the corn supply (περὶ σίτου
) and the defence of the country
(περὶ φυλακῆς τῆς χώρας,
s. v. κυρία
); the lists of confiscated property, and of the claims
to succession that had been announced before the courts, were also read out:
the former, that the people might see how their balance stood with regard to
this branch of the revenue [DEMIOPRATA
]; the latter, that state claims might not be
overlooked. The second assembly was appointed for the hearing of those who
came before the people as suppliants for some favour, such as the
rehabilitation of ἄτιμοι,
the repayment of
monies due from the state ( “petitions of right” in English
law), or the remission of sentences; or in general, for the class of cases
or exemption from legal
]. The third was
devoted to foreign affairs, and in it ambassadors and heralds were received:
we need not make a difficulty over the κυρία
of the Acharnians
19), and the reception of the Persian ambassadors
61). In the fourth, the people decided
περὶ ἱερῶν καὶ δημοσίων,
matters whether religious or secular. These determinations rest mostly upon
the authority of Pollux (8.95, 96); but when these “standing
orders” had been disposed of, other business no doubt might be taken,
if previously entered on the programme. (Schömann, p. 385; Gilbert,
p. 282 f.)
In judicial matters the people acted only in exceptional cases, chiefly those
discussed under EISANGELIA, EPANGELIA, and PROBOLÉ. Closely akin to the εἰσαγγελία,
or information by a person who
thereupon became himself the prosecutor of the accused, yet distinct from
it, was the μήνυσις,
an information by any
one either disqualified (as a foreigner, a slave, or an accessory) or
disinclined to make a regular impeachment. In both cases the people either
itself undertook the inquiry in such a manner that the prosecution and the
defence were carried on in the ecclesia, and this body pronounced the final
judgment, or (more usually) the assembly, after having satisfied itself by a
preliminary inquiry that there was at least a case for a jury, referred it
to a court of law. The people might then specify according to what laws it
should be decided, and what punishment should be awarded if a conviction
ensued; and might appoint συνήγοροι,
of “advocates holding a government brief,” to watch the case on
their behalf. Such complaints and indictments were in the first instance
brought regularly before the senate, and came before the people only when
the case was too serious for the former to deal with; a fine of 500 drachmas
being the maximum penalty that the senate was empowered to inflict. Among
the judicial acts of the people, we may also reckon the special commissions
of inquiry which were sometimes issued; for instance, the periodical
overhauling of the finances by the appointment of ζητηταί
]. Inquiries into conspiracies or secret crimes might be thus
relegated to the Areiopagus or the senate, and the guilty parties, when
discovered, indicted before the people: on some occasions, as in that of the
mutilation of the Hermae, the senate received full powers to try and
sentence the offenders (ἦ γὰρ
Andoc. de Myst.
§ 15). The
proceedings of a revolutionary mob, like that which condemned Phocion, lie
outside the ordinary methods of the Athenian constitution.
As regards the elections of magistrates (ἀρχαιρεσίαι
), from the time that the majority of posts were
filled by lot, only a few took place in the popular assembly. These were,
naturally, for the offices in which personal or property qualifications were
required; such as the Strategi, the chief financial minister (ταμίας ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει
), and others who
had the handling of large sums of public money. The election was invariably
conducted by show of hands (χειροτονία
and not by voting tablets or by ballot. Ἀρχαὶ
might be filled up only a day or two before the end
of the outgoing year (Lys. c. Evand.
§ 6); but the
assemblies for the choice of ἀρχαὶ
must have been held earlier, and they are placed,
with great probability, in the first ecclesia of the ninth prytany
(Schömann, p. 390 n.). The presidency of these assemblies is stated
to have belonged, in the case of the election of generals, to the archons;
in other elections it was probably held by the prytanes or proedri; but
little is really known as to the details. Besides those who declared
themselves candidates, persons might be nominated for office without their
own consent; but in this case might refuse it on taking the oath called EXOMOSIA
Ambassadors, who of
course were appointed for their fitness, were (though not technically an
) elected in the same way when
occasion arose: Demosthenes, when first chosen to go on the embassy to
Philip, renounced by ἐξωμοσία
p. 378.122 = 133).
The legislative powers of the people in assembly, so far as they were defined
by the laws of Solon still in force in the time of Demosthenes, were very
limited. The procedure by which new laws (in the strict sense) were made, is
described under NOMOTHETAE; but the practice in
later times differed widely from the theory. As democracy developed, the
sovereign people became less and less inclined to bind itself strictly to
these regulations. The abuse crept in of bringing forward legislative
motions in the assembly no less than any other kind of proposals at any time
that was found convenient, and without the regular practice of causing a
jury of nomothetae, chosen from those who had taken the heliastic oath, to
pass a decision upon them. Accordingly, there arose a vast mass of new laws
of all kinds, in correspondence with the interest of the popular leaders
) of the period. As early as
406 B.C., at the trial of the six generals, the
appeal of the friends of the accused for strict legal procedure was met by
the cry that “it was monstrous that the people should not be allowed
to do as it pleased” (Xen. Hell.
, § 12). Demosthenes complains that the orators were
passing new laws almost every month in their own interest (c.
p. 744.142). The author of the speech against
uses almost the same words as Xenophon in describing the
“omnipotence” of the people (p. 1375.88). And Aristotle,
the shrewd foreign observer, in a passage on the corruptions of democracy,
without naming the Athenians mentions “government by ψηφίσματα
” as a characteristic of the
final stage (Pol.
iv. [p. 1.703]
4 = p. 1292, 5). It is superfluous to attempt to define the matters of
which the Ecclesia took cognisance: it was king and parliament in one,
sitting upon its lit de justice
and registering its
own decrees. While clinging tenaciously to these sovereign rights, it was,
however, aware of its own fallibility, ready to repent of its hasty
impulses, and to punish those by whom it had been led astray; and as has
been remarked under AREIOPAGUS
the only real restraint upon its actions during the last
century of free Athens was the PARANOMON
(Authorities under BOULÉ;
1.379-400, E. T.; Gilbert,
1.268-295; Perrot, Essai sur le
Droit Public d' Athènes,
pp. 37 ff., 220 ff.) [R.W
. It has been
mentioned (App. s. v. AREIOPAGUS
) that the Ecclesia first took a definite shape in the
legislation of Draco. The four regular assemblies in each prytany, of which
only the first was called κυρία,
the text of the Ἀθ. πολ.
with the citations from Aristotle in Harpocration and Pollux [ECCLESIA
p. 697 b
]. The name of Callistratus does not occur in the
account of the μισθὸς ἐκκλησιαστικός
p. 699 a
]: it is briefly stated that Agyrrhius
first gave an obol, one Heraclides raised it to a διώβολον,
Agyrrhius again to a τριώβολον
(100.41). A very different statement in another
part of the work must be left unexplained: μισθοφοροῦσι δὲ πρῶτου [μὲν ὁ δῆμος] ταῖς μὲν ἄλλαις
ἐκκλησίαις δραχμήν, τῇ δὲ κυρίᾳ ἐννέα
(i. e. nine
obols or a drachma and a half, 100.62). If, as Mr. Kenyon supposes, this
doubling and trebling of the pay was the work of demagogues of the fourth
century, we should probably have found some mention of it in the orators and
grammarians. The word δἣμος,
it will be
seen, has been supplied from conjecture, but seems to give the sense
required by the context.
As regards the business taken at each meeting, the details given by the
] may be supplemented, but are not
contradicted. In the first or κυρία
of each prytany, after the “claims to
succession” (λήξεις κλήρων
words καὶ τῶν ἐπικλήρων
follow, and may
easily have dropped out (100.43). Then follows an account of matters
reserved for the κυρία ἐκκλησία
sixth prytany: questions of ostracism, and of the prosecution of informers
). The Ἀθ. πολ.,
in agreement with other authorities,
assigns the second assembly of each prytany to ἱκετηρίαι:
as to the third and fourth it differs somewhat
from Pollux, whose account we had followed: αἱ δὲ
δύο περὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἰσίν, ἐν αἷς κελεύουσιν οἱ νόμοι τρία
μὲν ἱερῶν χρηματίζειν, τρία δὲ κήρυξιν καὶ πρεσβείαις, τρία δ᾽
: i. e. not more than three proposals or motions on
each of these subjects were allowed in each prytany.
Schömann's conjecture [ib. p. 702 b] that the ἀρχαιρεσίαι
took place in the ninth prytany must now give
place to the definite statement that they were in the first prytany after
the sixth in which the omens. were favourable (ποιοῦσι δ᾽ οἱ μετὰ τὴν ς_ πρυτανεύοντες ἐφ̓ ὧν ἂν εὐσημία
100.44). This of course applies only to ἀρχαὶ χειροτονηταὶ
such as the Strategi and
other military officers: ἀρχαὶ κληρωταί,
as we have stated l.c.,
might be filled up at the very end of the year.