Spartan institutions were pictured as a model of political stability from the Classical period onwards. The so-called Spartan ‘mirage’ did not involve only its constitutional order but also social and economic institutions. Xenophon begins his Constitution of the Lacedaemonians by associating Spartan fame with the politeia set up by Lycurgus, which made the Laconian city the most powerful (δυνατωτάτη) and famous (ὀνομαστοτάτη) polis in Greece (Xen. Lac. 1.1). In Aristotle's Politics, in which the assessment of Sparta is more complex and nuanced, one finds a critique of contemporary Spartan institutions as well as praise for Lycurgus as a great lawgiver who established the laws of Sparta (Arist. Pol. 2.1269a69, 2.1273b20). Most other ancient sources often remark upon the unchangeable features of some Spartan institutions as a key aspect of Spartan εὐνομία. Thucydides maintains that, after a long period of war and stasis, the Dorians established excellent laws and Sparta employed the same constitution for more than four hundred years (Thuc. 1.18.1: τετρακόσια καὶ ὀλίγῳ πλείω ἐς τὴν τελευτὴν τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου ἀφ᾽ οὗ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τῇ αὐτῇ πολιτείᾳ χρῶνται).
1 For Sparta as model for modern republicanism, see Nippel, W., ‘Ancient and modern republicanism: “mixed constitution” and “ephors”’, in Fontana, B. (ed.), The Invention of the Modern Republic (Cambridge, 1994), 6–26 .
2 For the expression mirage spartiate, see Ollier, F., Le Mirage Spartiate. Étude sur l'idéalisation de Sparta dans l'antiquité grecque de l'origine jusqu'aux Cyniques (Paris, 1933).
3 On Xenophon's Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, see Tuplin, C., ‘Xenophon, Sparta and the Cyropaedia ’, in Hodkinson, S. and Powell, A. (edd.), The Shadow of Sparta (London, 1994), 127–82; Lipka, M., Xenophon's Spartan Constitution (Berlin, 2002), 36 ; Gray, V., Xenophon On Government (Cambridge, 2007).
4 For a careful analysis of Sparta in Aristotle's works, see Bertelli, L., ‘La Sparta di Aristotele: un ambiguo paradigma o la crisi di un modello?’, RSA 34 (2004), 9–71 .
5 See also Lys. 33.7.
6 For studies about the myth of Sparta, see e.g. Tigerstedt, E.N., The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, vols. 1–3 (Stockholm, 1965–1978); Powell, A. and Hodkinson, S. (edd.), The Shadow of Sparta (London, 1994).
7 Cartledge, P., Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (London and Baltimore, 1987), 118 .
8 Flower, M., ‘The invention of tradition in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta’, in Powell, A. and Hodkinson, S. (edd.), Sparta beyond the Mirage (London, 2002), 191–217 . For first lawgivers, see Hölkeskamp, K.J., Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archaischen Griechenland (Stuttgart, 1999), 44–59 ; Camassa, G., Scrittura e mutamento delle leggi nel mondo antico: dal Vicino Oriente alla Grecia di età arcaica e classica (Rome, 2011), 71–177 ; Canevaro, M., ‘Making and changing the laws in ancient Athens’, in Canevaro, M. and Harris, E.M., The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law (Oxford, 2015) (DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199599257.013.4).
9 Hodkinson, S., ‘“Blind ploutos”? Contemporary images of the role of wealth in Classical Sparta’, in Powell, A. and Hodkinson, S. (edd.), The Shadow of Sparta (London, 1994), 183–222 ; S. Hodkinson, ‘Was Sparta an exceptional polis?’, and Hansen, M.H. and Hodkinson, S., ‘Spartan exceptionalism. Continuing the debate’, in Hodkinson, S. (ed.), Sparta: Comparative Approaches (Swansea, 2009), 417–22 and 473–98 respectively. For a concise but effective history of modern scholarship about Sparta, see in the same volume pages ix–xxxiii (Introduction with bibliography).
10 The noun ῥήτρα shows an oral origin of the archaic text. The division of the text of the Rhetra and the ‘rider’ are in fact later antiquarian distinctions; see Nafissi, M., La nascita del kosmos: studi sulla storia e la società di Sparta (Perugia, 1991), 67–71 .
11 Nafissi, M., ‘The Great Rhetra (Plut. Lyc. 6): a retrospective and intentional construct?’, in Foxhall, L., Gehrke, H.J., Luraghi, N. (edd.), Intentional History. Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart, 2010), 89–119 (with full bibliography on the Great Rhetra at 93 n. 20), pace Schulz, F., Die homerische Räte und die spartanische Gerusie (Düsseldorf, 2011), 154 . For intentional history, see Gehrke, H.J., ‘Myth, history, and collective identity: uses of the past in ancient Greece and beyond’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, 2001), 286–313 . See also Maffi, A., ‘Studi recenti sulla Grande Rhetra ’, Dike 5 (2002), 195–235 ; and Lupi, M., ‘Testo e contesti. La Grande Rhetra e le procedure spartane di ammissione alla cittadinanza’, Incidenza dell’ Antico 12 (2014), 9–41 , who controversially maintains that the Great Rhetra is not a constitutional document but provides an archaic procedure for the admission of new members in the Spartan civic body during the religious festival of the ἀπέλλαι.
12 Nafissi, M., ‘Sparta’, in Raaflaub, K. and van Wees, H., A Companion to Archaic Greece (London, 2009), 117–37, at 127; on the relationship between the Great Rhetra and Tyrtaeus’ Εὐνομία, see van Wees, H., ‘Tyrtaeus’ Eunomia: nothing to do with the Great Rhetra’, in Hodkinson, S. and Powell, A., Sparta: New Perspectives (London, 1999), 1–42 ; van Wees, H., ‘Gute Ordnung ohne grosse Rhetra: noch einmal zu Tyrtaios’ Eunomia’, GFA 5 (2002), 89–103 , who argues that it is very difficult to identify clear cross-references between the two texts contra Raaflaub, K.A., ‘Athenian and Spartan eunomia, or: what to do with Solon's timocracy?’, in Blok, J.H. and Lardinois, A.P.H.M. (edd.), Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches (Leiden, 2006), 390–428 .
13 See section III below.
14 Andrewes, A., ‘The government of Classical Sparta’, in Badian, E. (ed.), Ancient Societies and Institutions. Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday (Oxford, 1966), 1–20 , at 5 n. 8; de Ste. Croix, G.E.M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London, 1972), 127 n. 99; Jeffrey, L.H., Archaic Greece: The City-States 700–500 B.C. (London, 1976), 249 .
15 Ruzé, F., Déliberation et pouvoir dans la cité grecque de Nestor à Socrate (Paris, 1997), 150–6.
16 Schulz (n. 11), 196–201.
17 Pasquino, P., ‘Il potere diviso. Dalla graphé paranomon nella democrazia ateniese a John Locke e James Madison’, in Conflitti (Naples, 2005), 89–99 ; Pasquino, P., ‘Democracy ancient and modern: divided power’, in Hansen, M.H. (ed.), Démocratie athénienne – démocratie moderne: tradition et influences (Geneva, 2010), 1–50, at 27–8.
18 Harris shows that there was no shift from popular sovereignty in the fifth century b.c. to the sovereignty of law in the fourth century b.c. In both periods it was the role of the courts to implement the rule of law and for the Assembly to uphold popular sovereignty. See E.M. Harris, ‘From democracy to the rule of law? Constitutional change in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.e.’, in Tiersch, C. (ed.), Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert. Zwischen Modernisierung und Tradition (Stuttgart, 2016), 80–5, pace Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structures, Principles, Ideology (Oxford, 1991), 150–5, 300–4.
19 For Spartan εὐνομία and the spirit of archaic law, see Harris, E.M., Democracy and Rule of Law in Classical Athens. Essays on Law, Society, and Politics (Cambridge, 2006), 3–28 .
20 Harris, E.M., ‘The flawed origins of ancient Greek democracy’, in Havlíček, A., Ch. Horn, Jinek, J. (edd.), Nous, Polis, Nomos. Festschrift Francisco L. Lisi (St. Augustin, 2016), 1–13 .
21 The incorrect identification of the ephors in the Rhetra and in Tyrtaeus’ ἄνδρες δημόται is based on weak interpretations of literary evidence from Plut. Lyc. 6.10 and Diod. Sic. 7.12.6, and on arbitrary assumptions that Diodorus’ lines come from Tyrtaeus’ poem (cf. Nafissi [n. 11], 98–102), pace Richer, N., Les éphores. Études sur l'histoire et sur l'image de Sparte (VIIIe – IIIe siècle av. J. C.) (Paris, 1998), 98–106 ; Link, S., Das frühe Sparta. Untersuchungen zur seiner staatlichen und gesellschaftichen Entwicklung im 7. und 6. Jh. v.Chr. (St. Katharinen, 2000), 19–30 ; Luther, A., Könige und Ephoren. Untersuchungen zur spartanischen Verfassungsgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), 44–59 .
22 See Plut. Lyc. 6.3. Nafissi (n. 11), 104–7 points out that this is a retrospective word, normally used for oikists and founders of cults.
23 Nafissi, M., ‘Forme di controllo a Sparta’, Il pensiero politico 40 (2007), 329–44, at 331–2; Millender, E., ‘The Spartan dyarchy: a comparative perspective’, in Hodkinson, S. (ed.), Sparta: Comparative Approaches (Swansea, 2009), 31–40 . On Spartan kingship, see Carlier, P., La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg, 1984); Cartledge, P.A., Spartan Reflections (London, 2001), 55–67 .
24 Harris, E.M., ‘Military organization and one-man rule in the Greek polis ’, Ktèma 40 (2015), 83–90 . For the legal controls of military leadership in the Greek poleis, see Harris, E.M., ‘The rule of law and military organization in the Greek polis ’, in Thür, G. (ed.), Symposion 2009: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Vienna, 2010), 405–17.
25 The regular Doric word was γεροντία (Xen. Lac. 10.1).
26 See Nafissi (n. 23), 331; Schulz (n. 11), 237. For the voting powers and the epistemic status of the γέροντες, see Schwartzberg, M., Counting the Many: The Origins and Limits of Supermajority Rule (Cambridge, 2014), 25–7. See also Lupi, M., ‘Il voto dei re spartani’, Quaderni di Storia 79 (2014), 38–41 . Cf. Hdt. 6.57; Thuc. 1.20.3; Pl. Leg. 692a2 (δύναμις ἰσόψηφος).
27 For the life appointment, see David, E., Old Age in Sparta (Amsterdam, 1991), 18 ; Ruzé (n. 15), 138–9.
28 Schulz (n. 11), 106–8.
29 For καλοκἀγαθία in Sparta, see Wankel, H., Kalos kai Agathos (Frankfurt, 1961); Davies, P., ‘ Kalos kagathos and scholarly perception of Spartan society’, Historia 62 (2013), 259–79, pace Bourriot, F., ‘ Kaloi kagathoi, kalokagathia à Sparte aux époques archaïque et classique’, Historia 45 (1996), 129–40. Cf. Cairns, D.L., ‘Review of F. Bourriot, Kalos Kagathos—Kalokagathia: D'un terme de propagande de sophistes à une notion sociale et philosophique: Étude d'histoire athénienne (Zürich and New York, 1995)’, CR 47 (1997), 74–6.
30 Schulz (n. 11), 121–2 calculated that the average office term for a γέρων was roughly 7.5 years, with a turnover of 3.73 new γέροντες every year.
31 See also Hdt. 9.28.1; Thuc. 1.87.
32 Schulz (n. 11), 114–15. For the election of the ephors, see Richer (n. 21), 296–307.
33 Schwartzberg (n. 26), 25–6.
34 For an analysis of the ritual, see Jordan, B., ‘The ceremony of the helots in Thucydides IV 80’, AC 59 (1990), 37–69 ; David (n. 27), 18–19; Schulz (n. 11), 117–19.
35 For death penalty and exile, cf. Schulz (n. 11), 180–1.
36 For instances of trials of Spartan kings, see Hdt. 6.82, Paus. 3.6.8, Xen. Hell. 3.3, 8–11, Plut. Agis 19. The legal procedure for capital trials began before the ephors, who conducted the ἀνάκρισις and brought the charge before the Gerousia. See also Vat. Gr. 2306 fr. A 1–30 and Keaney, J.J., ‘Theophrastus on Greek judicial procedure’, TAPhA 104 (1974), 179–94.
37 Ephors are also called by sources as: ἀρχή, ἄρχοντες, τὰ τέλη, οἱ ἐν τέλει. See Richer (n. 21), 265–70.
38 Nafissi (n. 12), 130–1.
39 It is possible that an ephor could be elected only once to that office. On ephors, see also Sommer, S., Das Ephorat. Garant des spartanischen Kosmos (St. Katharinen, 2001).
40 For the mobilisation, see Richer (n. 21), 324–34; for the religious role, 157–257; for finance, 477–9; for εὔθυναι, 442–4 with Fröhlich, P., Les cités grecques et le contrôle des magistrats (IVe –Ier siècle avant J.-C.) (Geneva and Paris, 2005).
41 For probouleusis in Athens, see Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972), 52–81 ; de Laix, R.A., Probouleusis at Athens: A Study of Political Decision-Making (Berkeley, 1973); cf. Dem. 22.5–7; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 45.4.
42 See Harris, E.M., ‘Nicias’ illegal proposal in the debate about the Sicilian expedition (Thuc. 6.14)’, CPh 109 (2014), 66–72 .
43 March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P., ‘The New Institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, APSR 78 (1984), 734–49; and id. ‘Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”’, in Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A. and Rockman, B.A. (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford, 2006), 3–20 ; Fioretos, O., Falleti, T.G., Sheingate, A., ‘Introduction: historical institutionalism in political science’, in Fioretos, O., Falleti, T.G., Sheingate, A. (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism (Oxford, 2016), 4–23 .
44 On πρόβουλοι or νομοφύλακες, see Arist. Pol. 1323a; πρόβουλοι were elected in Athens soon after the defeat in the Sicilian expedition. See Thuc. 8.1.3; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 29.2–31.3. Cf. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary to the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), 362–415 ; Harris, E.M., ‘The constitution of the Five Thousand’, HSPh 93 (1990), 243–80.
45 Cf. M. Canevaro, ‘Aristotele, Politica IV, capitoli 14–16’, in Bertelli, L. and Moggi, M. (edd.), Aristotele. La Politica. Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Rome, 2014), 279–377, at 314.
46 A late sixth-century probouleutic Council of Elders (πρείγα) is also attested in an unknown city of Western Locris. It played a role along with the assembly (πόλις) and the ἀποκλεσία in overriding an entrenchment clause about division of the land (IG IX I2 609).
47 Cf. Arist. Pol. 1299b–1300a4 with Canevaro's commentary (n. 45), 336–7.
48 On the historicity of the event, see in particular the good analysis of Vattuone, R., ‘Hetoimaridas: note di politica interna a Sparta in età classica’, in Bearzot, C. and Landucci, F. (edd.), Partiti e fazioni nell'esperienza politica greca (Milan, 2008), 131–51. See also Green, P., Diodorus Siculus. Books 11–12.371. Greek History, 489–431. The Alternative Version (Austin, TX, 2006), 111 n. 190; see also Zaccarini, M., ‘The case of Cimon: the evolution of the meaning of philolaconism in Athens’, Hormos–Ricerche di Storia Antica 3 (2011), 287–304 , at 291 n. 15 contra Fornara, C.W. and Samons, L.J. II, Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1991), 122–4.
49 Griffith, G.T., ‘Isegoria in the assembly at Athens’, in Badian, E. (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions. Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday (Oxford, 1966), 115–38, 134 n. 10; see also Kelly, D.H., ‘Policy-making in the Spartan Assembly’, Antichthon 15 (1981), 47–61, at 59 n. 45.
50 Plut. Agis 8–11.
51 Gabba, E., ‘Studi su Filarco’, Athenaeum 35 (1957), 3–55 , especially 15; Africa, T.W., Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley and Cambridge, 1961); cf. Polyb. 2.56; Pédech, P., Trois historiens méconnus: Théopompe, Duris, Phylarque (Paris, 1989), 403 . For a recent study on Polybius and Phylarchus’ dramatic historiography, see Schepens, G., ‘Polybius on Phylarchus’ “tragic” historiography’, in Schepens, G., Bollansée, J. (edd.) The Shadow of Polybius. Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 21–22 September 2001 (Leuven-Paris-Dudley, 2005), 141–64.
52 Powell, A., ‘Spartan women assertive in politics? Plutarch's Lives of Agis and Kleomenes ’, in Hodkinson, S. and Powell, A., Sparta: New Perspectives (London, 1999), 401–15.
53 For the reforms of Agis IV, see Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A., Hellenistic and Roman Sparta (London and Berkeley, 1991), 68–72 .
54 Diodorus’ text does not mention shouts and applauses, but this practice is attested in Sparta. For voting by shouting, see n. 35.
55 Kelly (n. 49), 60.
56 Richer (n. 21), 349–51; cf. Ruzé (n. 15), 150; Ruzé, F., ‘Dire le droit: retour sur la grande rhètra’, in Legras, B. and Thür, G. (edd.), Symposion 2011: Études d'histoire du droit grec et hellénistique (Paris, 7–10 September 2011) (Vienna, 2012), 5–15 has recently reasserted her interpretation through a controversial reading of the Rhetra. Cf. Gagarin's reply: M. Gagarin, ‘Observations on the Great Rhetra: a response to Francoise Ruzé’, in Legras and Thür (this note), 17–20.
57 Schulz (n. 11), 198–200 substantiates his thesis by including other pieces of evidence. In particular, the passages in Plut. Agis 5.3–5 about the rhetra introduced by the ephor Epitadeus and the passages in Plut. Lys. 16–17 about the prohibition of silver and gold seem clearly to highlight the wide probouleutic power of the ephors rather than the primacy of the Gerousia. Yet, Schütrumpf and Hodkinson have clearly demonstrated that the Epitadeus episode in the Life of Agis is an unhistorical account, and that it is based on Plato's Republic (555c–e). See Schütrumpf, E., Aristoteles, Politik: Buch II und Buch III (Berlin, 1991), 317 ; Hodkinson, S., Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta (London, 2000), 90–4. See also Nafissi, M., ‘Asteropos e Epitadeus. Storie di due efori spartani e di altri personaggi dai nomi parlanti’, Incidenza dell’ Antico 6 (2008), 49–89, at 72–84.
58 For previous reconstructions, see Forrest, W.G., ‘Legislation in Sparta’, Phoenix 21 (1967), 11–19 .
59 Schulz (n. 11), 196–201. Schulz singles out two distinct kinds of assemblies: an advisory assembly (beratende Volksversammlung) and a decision-making assembly (entscheidende Volksversammlung).
60 Ruzé (n. 15), 154 argues that the ‘spécificité’ of the Spartan polis made it difficult for the ancient author to describe the decision-making by using ordinary institutional terminology. For examples of oligarchic practice, see pp. 17–18 below.
61 Plut. Agis 8.1, 9.1. Schulz (n. 11), 200. For the use of writing by the ephors, see Richer (n. 21), 436–7, 446–7, 479–80; for the Spartan σκυτάλη, see Richer (n. 21), 483–90; on literacy in Sparta, see Boring, T.A., Literacy in Ancient Sparta (Leiden, 1979).
62 Millender, E.G., ‘Spartan literacy revisited’, ClAnt 20 (2001), 127–41.
63 For the Boulē–Dēmos opposition in the narrative of Plutarch's Lives, see Pelling, C., ‘Plutarch and Roman politics’, in Pelling, C., Plutarch and History. Eighteen Studies (London, 2009), 211–17.
64 Kennell, N.M., Spartans: A New History (Chichester, 2010), 169 . Cf. Xen. Hell. 2.3.34; the decisions of the board of ephors were binding for all its members.
65 Cf. Plut. Lys. 14.4, which reports the decree of the ephors stating: ‘this is resolved by the authorities of the Lacedaemonians’ (τὸ δ᾽ ἀληθινὸν δόγμα τῶν ἐφόρων οὕτως εἶχε: τάδε τὰ τέλη τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ἔγνω).
66 Schulz (n. 11), 212 explains that the formula mentions only the ephors and the Assembly, because of an ellipsis of the term ‘Gerousia’, since it was in-between these two institutions in the decision-making. The ephors started the legislative procedure by putting forward the motion in the Gerousia and the Assembly ratified it. However, the enactment formula usually shows the enactment bodies of a decree or of a law, and Schulz's explanation is forced.
67 There are 3,692 occurrences of this clause on the PHI database of Greek inscriptions. However, cf. Rhodes, P.J. and Lewis, D.M., The Decrees of the Greek States (Oxford, 1997), 258 e.g. on Mytilenean probouleumatic formulas, which are very different from this model.
68 On the treaty in Thucydides, see Canfora, L., ‘Trattati in Tucidide’, in Canfora, L., Liverani, M., Zaccagnini, C., I trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome, 1990), 193–216 .
69 Richer (n. 21), 339.
70 On Thucydides’ autopsy of these documents, see Schepens, G., L'autopsie dans le méthod des historiens grecques du Ve siècle avant J.-C. (Brussels, 1980), 184 .
71 Schulz (n. 11), 206–7 interprets this passage as evidence for the lack of probouleusis between the two speeches and the vote of the Assembly. It is possible that no written draft was discussed, but it is clear that the ephor was legally empowered to use his probouleutic power by putting the item to the vote of the δᾶμος. Similarly, in Polyb. 4.34–5 the ephors allowed the Aetolian ambassador to address the Assembly and to discuss the alliance, even if there was no unanimity amongst the γέροντες.
72 Fabiani, R., ‘ Dedochtai tei Boulei kai toi Demoi: protagonisti e prassi deliberativa a Iasos’, in Mann, C. and Scholz, P. (edd.), Demokratie im Hellenismus. Von der Herrschaft des Volkes zur Herrschaft der Honoratioren? (Mainz, 2012), 156 .
73 Hamon, P., ‘Kymè d’Éolide, cité libre et démocratique, et le pouvoir des stratèges’, Chiron 38 (2008), 63–106, at 70.
74 For the Spartan Assembly as contio, see n. 15 above.
75 Nafissi (n. 10), 364.
76 Rhodes and Lewis (n. 67), 484–91 with many examples of probouleusis in practice in the Greek poleis.
77 Nafissi (n. 23), 335, pace Ruzé (n. 56). For the prohibition on emending proposals drafted by magistrates in the Spartan assembly, see Arist. Pol. 1272a10–12 below, pace Andrewes (n. 14), 4, who drew an analogy with the Athenian practice of open προβουλεύματα. It is worth noting that even in fourth-century Athens, where the Assembly had broad powers, in the period from 403/402 b.c. to 323/322 b.c. the number of preserved decrees on stone that were verbatim ratifications of the Council's προβουλεύματα is higher than non-probouleumatic decrees amended by the dēmos (52%–48%); see Oliver, G., ‘Oligarchy at Athens after the Lamian War: epigraphic evidence for the Boule and the Ekklesia ’, in Palagia, O. and Tracy, S. (edd.), The Macedonians in Athens 322–229 BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 24–26 2001 (Oxford, 2003), 40–51, at 46.
78 Kennell (n. 64), 110.
79 For Cretan Councils of Elders, see M. Youni, ‘Councils of Elders and aristocratic government in the Cretan poleis’, with the answer of Maffi, A., ‘Il consiglio degli anziani e le istituzioni politiche delle città cretesi: risposta a Maria Youni’, in Gagarin, M., Lanni, A. (edd.), Symposion 2013: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Cambridge MA, 26.–29. August 2013) (Vienna, 2015), 13–26 and 27–30 respectively. Against a view of powerful Councils of Elders in Crete, see Gagarin, M. and Perlman, P., The Laws of Ancient Crete: 650–400 b.c.e. (Oxford, 2016), 62–4.
80 The term kyrios (κύριος) indicates both in the documentary sources and in philosophical language a legally recognized power that does not need to refer to a higher authority. Cf. Miller, F.D., ‘Aristotle's philosophy of law’, in Miller, F.D. and Biondi, C.A. (edd.), A History of the Philosophy of Law from the Ancient Greeks to the Scholiastics (Dordrecht, 2007), 106–7.
81 Cf. Nafissi (n. 10), 363–5; Bertelli (n. 4), 40–3; cf. the use of the same expression in Polyb. 21.32.1 to indicate the ratification vote of the motion of the συνέδριον by the dēmos (δόξαντος δὲ τῷ συνεδρίῳ, καὶ τοῦ δήμου συνεπιψηφίσαντος, ἐκυρώθη τὰ κατὰ τὰς διαλύσεις).
82 Canevaro (n. 45), 315–17. Cf. also IG II2 1237 (lines 31, 38, 90, 95, 98, 101–3).
83 Poddighe, E., ‘Ateniesi infami (atimoi) ed ex Ateniesi senza i requisiti (apepsephismenoi). Nuove osservazioni in margine al fr. 29 Jensen di Iperide sulle diverse forme di esclusione dal corpo civico di Atene’, AFLC 61 (2006), 5–24, at 16.
84 David (n. 27), 33—contra Schulz (n. 11), 155–7—recognizes that the Gerousia was empowered of nomophylakia but does not include it in his reconstruction of the probouleutic and deliberative procedure.
85 Cf. Fisher, N., Aeschines Against Timarchos (Oxford, 2001), 329 .
86 For the legislation of Demetrius of Phalerum, see O'Sullivan, L., The Regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens, 317–307 b.c.e. (Leiden, 2009); Banfi, A., Sovranità della legge. La legislazione di Demetrio del Falero ad Atene (317–307 a.C.) (Milan, 2010); Canevaro, M., ‘The twilight of nomothesia: legislation in early Hellenistic Athens (322–301)’, Dike 14 (2013), 55–85, at 66–9.
87 Bearzot, C., ‘I nomophylakes in due lemmi di Polluce (VIII 94 νομοφύλακες e VIII 102 οἱ ἕνδεκα)’, in Bearzot, C., Landucci, F. and Zecchini, G. (edd.), L'Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce: tra lessicografia e antiquaria (Milan, 2007), 43–68 ; id. ‘ Nomophylakes e nomophylakia nella Politica di Aristotele’, in Talamo, C. and Polito, M. (edd.), Istituzioni e Costituzioni in Aristotele tra storiografia e pensiero politico (Tivoli, 2012), 29–47 ; Canevaro (n. 45), 315–17. For nomophylakes in Athens, see Canevaro (n. 86), 66–7; Faraguna, M., ‘I nomophylakes tra utopia e realtà istituzionale delle città greche’, Politica Antica 5 (2015), 141–55. Cf. also Harp. s.v. νομοφύλακες and Pollux (8.94), who confirms the information in the Lexicon Rhetoricum Cantabrigiense, pace Morrow, G.R., Plato's Cretan City: A Historical Interpretation of the Laws (Princeton, 1960), 199 n. 108, who argues that there is no evidence of νομοφύλακες acting as probouleutic officials apart from Aristotle's statement.
88 Kelly (n. 49), 60.
89 Cf. Harris (n. 18), 76–80.
90 For the institutional values of the office of γέροντες, cf. p. 6 above.
91 Cf. a list of forty-one epigraphical examples of voting figures in Todd, S.C., ‘The publication of voting figures in the ancient Greek world’, in Legras, B. and Thür, G. (edd.), Symposion 2011: Études d'histoire du droit grec et hellénistique (Paris, 7–10 September 2011) (Vienna, 2012), 33–48 . Consensus was also used by boards of officials: cf. Thuc. 6.46.5–6.50.1; Plut. Nic. 14.3; Alc. 20.2–3 and see Harris (n. 24), 410. For consensus in Greek deliberative practice, see now Canevaro, M., ‘Majority rule vs consensus: the practice of deliberation in the Greek poleis ’, in Canevaro, M., Erskine, A., Gray, B. and Ober, J. (edd.), Ancient Greek History and the Contemporary Social Sciences (Edinburgh, forthcoming).
92 Cf. Canevaro (n. 91).
93 Fröhlich (n. 40), 294–7: in democratic regimes, ὁ βουλόμενος could bring a charge against magistrates who were usually supervised by larger bodies, such as the Council or the Assembly. For the ephors as supervisors of magistrates, see Fröhlich (n. 40), 373–5.
94 Harris (n. 24), 87.
95 See Lipka (n. 3), 246; cf. Plut. Cleom. 9.2, who, reporting Aristotle, says that the ephors taking office told the citizens ‘to shave their moustaches and to obey the laws’ if they wanted to avoid their sanctions.
96 For analysis of property and wealth in Sparta, see Hodkinson (n. 57).
97 In writing this essay I have incurred numerous debts of gratitude. I would like to thank Dr Benjamin Gray and Dr David Lewis for reading and commenting on a previous draft of this essay, Professor Edward Harris for his extensive and valuable feedback, and the anonymous referee at CQ for many thorough and helpful suggestions. I also would like to thank those who proofread this essay. Most of all, I am grateful to Dr Mirko Canevaro who read and commented on various drafts and helped me at every stage, through long conversations, providing invaluable suggestions and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank the AHRC and the School of History, Classics and Archaeology of the University of Edinburgh for supporting the work for this essay. Any remaining errors are my own.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed