User:Paul August/Gerousia: Difference between revisions

Gerousia

The Gerousia (γερουσία) was the council of elders in ancient Sparta. It consisted of the two Spartan kings, plus 28 adult male citizens (Spartiates) over the age of sixty called gerontes (γέροντες).

It is also sometimes referred to as the Spartan senate.

It was one of the three institutions involved in decision-making at Sparta.

It held extensive judicial and legislative powers, which shaped Sparta’s policies.

Ancient Greeks considered that the gerousia was created by the legendary Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus in his Great Rhetra, the constitution of Sparta.

The gerontes were elected through acclamation.

^[1]

Description

The Gerousia was the council of elders in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta. It consisted of the two Spartan kings, plus 28 adult male citizens (Spartiates). The gerontes were required to be at least sixty years old, and were appointed for life.^[1]

History

The gerousia is thought to have probably originated as “an assembly of representatives from leading families”^[1]

References

• Plutarch, Lycurgus, in Plutarch: Lives, Volume I: Theseus and Romulus, Lycurgus and Numa, Solon and Publicola, translated by Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Classical Library No. 46, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1914. ISBN 978-0-674-99052-4. Online version at the Perseus Digital Library.

• Raaflaub, Kurt A. and Rober W. Wallace (2006), ‘”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.

• Welwei, Karl-Wilhelm (2006), s.v. Gerousia, 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.

• BNPAUTHOR, [BNPLINK s.v. BNPARTICLE], 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.

Ancient

Politics

2.1275b.9–10

οἷον ἐν Λακεδαίμονι τὰς τῶν συμβολαίων δικάζει τῶν [10] ἐφόρων ἄλλος ἄλλας, οἱ δὲ γέροντες τὰς φονικάς, ἑτέρα δ᾽ ἴσως ἀρχή τις ἑτέρας.

[Rackham:] for example at Sparta suits for breach of contract are tried by different ephors [ἐφόρων] in different cases, while cases of homicide are tried by the ephors [sic γέροντες] and doubtless other suits by some other magistrate.

Oration 20 Against Leptines

107

ἐπειδάν τις εἰς τὴν καλουμένην γερουσίαν ἐγκριθῇ παρασχὼν αὑτὸν οἷον χρή, δεσπότης ἐστὶ τῶν πολλῶν.

Whenever a man for his good conduct is elected to the Senate, or Gerusia, as they call it, he is absolute master of the mass of citizens.

Great Rhetra

Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.1–4

Esu 2024, p. 137

Διὸς Συλλανίου καὶ Ἀθανᾶς Συλλανίας ἱερὸν ἱδρυσάμενον, φυλὰς φυλάξαντα καὶ ὠβὰς ὠβάξαντα, τριάκοντα γερουσίαν σὺν ἀρχαγέταις καταστήσαντα, ὥρας ἐξ ὥρας ἀπελλάζειν μεταξὺ Βαβύκας τε καὶ Κνακιῶνος, οὕτως εἰσφέρειν τε καὶ ἀφίστασθαι δάμῳ <…> καὶ κράτος. […] αἰ δὲ σκολιὰν ὁ δᾶμος ἕλοιτο, τοὺς πρεσβυγενέας καὶ ἀρχαγέτας ἀποστατῆρας ἦμεν

Having founded a cult of Zeus Syllanios and Athena Syllania, having divided the people [or: ‘kept the divisions’] in tribes and having divided it in obai, having appointed a council of thirty members, including the founders, regularly celebrate the Apellai between Babyka and Knakion. Bring forward and reject (proposals) as follows: to the people must go <…>and final decision, […] but if the people speaks crookedly [or: ‘asks for something crooked’] the elders and the founders are to be rejecters. (trans. Nafissi)

Kennell 2010, p. 46

after setting up a sanctuary to Zeus Syllanius and Athena Syllania, having tribed the tribes and obed the obes,

having established thirty men as a Gerousia along with archagetai (kings)

to hold the Apellai from month to month (?) between Babyka and Knakion,

in this way to bring in and stand aside from [legislation?],

†that for the Damos there be validity and power†

…

If the Demos should speak (or “choose”) crookedly, that the elders and archagetai be standers aside.

Raaflaub and Wallace 2007, p. 37

“After dedicating a temple to Zeus Sullanios and Athena Sullania, forming phu-lai and creating obai, and instituting a Gerousia of thirty, including the leaders (archagetai), then from season to season they shall apellazein between Babyka and Knakion so as to propose and stand aside (eispherein, aphisthasthai). But to the people (damos?) shall belong the authority to respond (?) and power (kratos).” (Plut. Lyc. 6.2, trans. adapted from Talbert 1988)

…

“… But if the people speaks crooked, the elders and the archagetai are to be rejecters” (Lyc. 6.7-8; trans. Murray 1993).

Ehrenberg 1968, p. 32

(1) found a sanctuary of Zeus Sylanius and Athena Sylania; (2) arrange the phylae and obae; (3) establish as the gerusia thirty [men] including the archagetae [= kings]; (4) hold the assembly from season to season, between Babyka [a bridge] and Knakion [a stream]; (5) thus put proposals [to the damos] and decline to do so. The damos shall have the right of refusal (?) and the power.’ Rider: ‘If the damos speaks crooked, the elders and archagetae shal refuse it (?).

Lycurgus

5.6

Among the many innovations which Lycurgus made, the first and most important was his institution of a senate, or Council of Elders, which, as Plato says,1 by being blended with the ‘feverish’ government of the kings, and by having an equal vote with them in matters of the highest importance, brought safety and due moderation into counsels of state. For before this the civil polity was veering and unsteady, inclining at one time to follow the kings towards tyranny, and at another to follow the multitude towards democracy;

5.7

but now, by making the power of the senate a sort of ballast for the ship of state and putting her on a steady keel, it achieved the safest and the most orderly arrangement, since the twenty-eight senators always took the side of the kings when it was a question of curbing democracy, and, on the other hand, always strengthened the people to withstand the encroachments of tyranny. The number of the senators was fixed at twenty-eight because, according to Aristotle, two of the thirty original associates of Lycurgus abandoned the enterprise from lack of courage.

5.8

But Sphaerus says that this was originally the number of those who shared the confidence of Lycurgus Possibly there is some virtue in this number being made up of seven multiplied by four, apart from the fact that, being equal to the sum of its own factors, it is the next perfect number after six. But in my own opinion, Lycurgus made the senators of just that number in order that the total might be thirty when the two kings were added to the eight and twenty.

6.1

So eager was Lycurgus for the establishment of this form of government, that he obtained an oracle from Delphi about it, which they call a ‘rhetra.’ And this is the way it runs: ‘When thou hast built a temple to Zeus Syllanius and Athena Syllania, divided the people into ‘phylai’ and into ‘obai,’ and established a senate [gerousia (γερουσίαν)] of thirty members, including the ‘archagetai,’ then from time to time ‘appellazein’ between Babyca and Cnacion¹ and there introduce and rescind measures; but the people must have the deciding voice and the power.’

26.1

The senators [gerontes (γέροντας)] were at first appointed by Lycurgus himself, as I have said,¹ from those who shared his counsels; but afterwards he arranged that any vacancy caused by death should be filled by the man elected as most deserving out of those above sixty years of age. And of all the contests in the world this would seem to have been the greatest and the most hotly disputed. For it was not the swiftest of the swift, nor the strongest of the strong, but the best and wisest of the good and wise who was to be elected, and have for the rest of his life, as a victor’s prize for excellence, what I may call the supreme power in the state, lord as he was of life and death, honour and dishonour, and all the greatest issues of life.

26.2

The election was made in the following manner. 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.

26.3

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. The victor then set a wreath upon his head and visited in order the temples of the gods. He was followed by great numbers of young men, who praised and extolled him, as well as by many women, who celebrated his excellence in songs, and dwelt on the happiness of his life.

Histories

6.45.5

τρίτον παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις οἱ μὲν βασιλεῖς ἀΐδιον ἔχουσι τὴν ἀρχήν, οἱ δὲ προσαγορευόμενοι γέροντες διὰ βίου, δι᾿ ὧν καὶ μεθ᾿ ὧν πάντα χειρίζεται τὰ κατὰ τὴν πολιτείαν.

and thirdly the fact that of the magistrates by whom or by whose cooperation the whole administration is conducted, the kings hold a permanent office and the members of the Gerousia are elected for life.

Hellenica

3.3.8

[397 B.C.] Upon hearing these statements the ephors came to the conclusion that he was describing a well-considered plan, and were greatly alarmed; and without even convening the Little [μικρὰν] Assembly [ἐκκλησίαν],¹ as it was called, but merely gathering about them—one ephor here and another there—some of the senators, they decided to send Cinadon to Aulon along with others of the [cont.]

¹ The reference is uncertain.

Constitution of the Lacedaemonians

10.2

ἐπὶ γὰρ τῷ τέρματι τοῦ βίου τὴν κρίσιν τῆς γεροντίας προσθεὶς ἐποίησε μηδὲ ἐν τῷ γήρᾳ ἀμελεῖσθαι τὴν καλοκἀγαθίαν.

By requiring men to face the ordeal of election to the Council of Elders near the end of life, he prevented neglect of high principles even in old age.

Modern

p. 31

We can assume that the primitive sovereignty of the warriors’ assembly (Wehrgemeinde) survived in the ‘apella’,¹⁴ and that the elder noblemen acted as advisers to the kings. At what time they gained an official standing as members of a council of elders (gerousia) is [cont.]

p. 32

unknown, though it must have happened fairly early. The apella, on the other hand, had the final decision by acclamation on such questions as peace and war. The earliest real evidence of the Spartan constitution is the ‘Great Rhetra’ (Plut. Lycurg. 6), a document widely and diversely discussed as ot its date, significance, and even to some extent its text. It is caled ‘great’ in contrast to three ‘small’ Rhetras also mentioned by Plutarch, which are probably nothing more than formulations of traditional customs; when we speak of the Rhetra, it is always the great one that is meant. Plutarch quotes it as an oracle given by the Delphic Apollo to Lycurgus; a further item is supposed to be an addition by the kings Polydorus and Theopompus. ‘Rhetra’ is a Dorian expression, indicating anything pronounced. It could be a divine oracle, though later it is normally used for a law or a treaty. As to the date of the Great Rhetra, the only clear indication is that Tyrtaeus (fr. 3, b) paraphrases its wording – with certain differences – and thus provides a certain terminus ante quem, the second half of the seventh century.

A translation would run somewhat like this: ‘(1) found a sanctuary of Zeus Sylanius and Athena Sylania; (2) arrange the phylae and obae; (3) establish as the gerusia thirty [men] including the archagetae [= kings]; (4) hold the assembly from season to season, between Babyka [a bridge] and Knakion [a stream]; (5) thus put proposals [to the damos] and decline to do so. The damos shall have the right of refusal (?) and the power.’ Rider: ‘If the damos speaks crooked, the elders and archagetae shall refuse it (?).’

This seems the essential meaning of the Rhetra: it gives orders to somebody who had asked the oracle, whether he represented the damos itself, or as the last sentence (5) of the Rhetra suggests, the gerusia. It deals with the creation of a new cult (1), the organization of phylae and obae (2), and that of the gerusia as a body of thirty including the two kings (3); it fixes the place and time for regular meetings of the apella (4), and it regulates the relations between the damos, the elders, and the kings (5). The general tendency is to give power (kratos) to the gerusia,¹⁵ to make the kings little more than its presidents and first speakers (though that may mean quite a lot), and formally to acknowledge the sovereignty of the damos. It cannot have meant to give the damos full and final power, partly because a real sovereignty of the ‘people’ is historicaly impossible [cont.]

p. 33

at any early date, and partly because the wording would actually anticipate the concept of democracy,¹⁶ A rider is added to the Rhetra, ascribed to the kings Polydorus and Theopompus, the contemporaries of the First Messenian War; that rider made the (unanimous?) will of elders and kings supreme over any ‘crooked’ decision of the apella. The rider cannot be much later than the Rhetra itself; with its stress on the importance of the kings it could not belong to the late seventh century.¹⁷ Its aim was to deprive the damos of any real power which might still derive from the last sentence of the Rhetra. In all this a good deal remains uncertain or obscure; but the whole document, written in a somewhat old-fashioned language, however much altered till the text reached Plutarch, represents the act of reorganizing the state, though almost exclusively its constitutional elements. They all, as far as they are mentioned in the Rhetra, seem to have existed before, but were then put on a new basis. The phylae were the three Dorian tribes, and the obae were the local units of the settlement of Sparta, its “villages’.¹⁸ A possible moment for the reconstruction, that is to say, for the inclusion of all citizens in both kinds of units, would have been the creation of Amyclae as the fifth of the Spartan villages. The Amyclaeans, who were Achaeans, would previously not have belonged to any of the Dorian phylae.¹⁹ Thus, the tribal and the territorial divisions were combined. It is very possible that the whole action had something to do with the army, though only the phylae, not the oba, were later army divisions.

In order to find a possible date for the Rhetra, it is necessary to find it a possible place in the history of Sparta. Perhaps the most remarkable fact about this remarkable document is the absence of the ephors.²⁰ The later list of eponymous ephors began with the year 754-753. It is not certain whether this date can be trusted. If it is historical, depending naturally on the recent introduction of writing, the ephors at that time would have been religious skywatchers of little, if any, political importance. We know (from Plut. Agis 14) that the five ephors had to observe the night sky, waiting for a sign which could be used to end the rule of one of the kings; that happened every ninth year, and it is possible that the term of eight years belonged to an ancient ritual.²¹ The political implications must belong to later times, probably the sixth century, [cont.]

p. 36

been illegitimate sons, born during the First Messenian War. Whether that is true or not, they certainly were discontented people who had no part in the war, and therefore probably no share in the new land; perhaps they were younger sons without a klaros. Land hunger was a sign of the time, natural enough with an increase in population and the rise of the peasantry everywhere. It is unlikely that in Sparta, after the extension of citizens’ land into Messenia, this was still of major significance, and it cannot have been the main cause of the migration of the parthenii. Their discontent will also have been caused by political and social grievances, and they may have proved strong indeed. The men left Laconia and sailed west; they founded Taras (Tarentum) in southern Italy, the only colony Sparta sent out during the centuries of the great colonization; that was about 705 B.C. Archaeological evidence at Tarentum shows sufficient Laconian pottery of the seventh century to prove that relations between the mother-city and the colony were not particularly bad, as is sometimes assumed; later they were quite good. 29 During the same period Sparta suffered external setbacks. It was probably in the first half of the seventh century that Argos had a great and successful ruler, Pheidon. It will have been he who defeated the Spartans (under Polydorus?) at Hysiae in 669.30 He even occupied Olympia temporarily, thus extending his power right across the Peloponnese. After his death, Argos declined, and soon Sparta again made progress along her frontiers. The Rhetra had consolidated the early state as an ‘alternative to tyranny’, but it had not solved the serious problems of Spartan society.³¹

…

p. 383 n. 14

14. (p. 31) The name of apella appears in the verb apellazein in the Rhetra and in late evidence (Hesych., inscriptions of first century B.c.). In the fifth century we find, even officially (Thuc. 5, 77, 1), the use of the common Greck word ekklesia. Cf. also the jupà ekAnoía, mentioned only once (Xen. hell. 3, 3, 8). Even so, I find it difficult to believe that the common expression was the original one ni Sparta; alater origin of hte name ‘apela’ seems most unlikely. But see A. Andrewes, ASAI 17, note 3.

Esu 2024

Online at Oxford Academic.

p. 125

Spartan political power was institutionally grounded on the interplay between the council of elders (gerousia), the ephors, and the assembly. This interplay followed different ideological patterns from those found in the other Greek councilassembly relationships.¹ Unlike the Athenian assembly, the Spartan assembly did not possess the power to transfer decisions to another deliberative body. On the contrary, the character of the Spartan politeia gave the probouleutic bodies—the gerousia and the ephors—the power to play a direct and prominent role in political deliberation, by shaping policy-making through the powers of probouleusis and nomophulakia (guardianship of the law). … The Spartan instantiation of divided power had integrated, within the deliberative procedures, specific steps for controlling the legality of the assembly’s decrees and the coherence of the decision with the traditional Spartan nomos.

p. 127

…

… Spartan deliberation was the result of a complex interaction between the council of elders (gerousia), the ephors, and the assembly. The gerousia and the ephors constituted the most important boards of officials in Sparta. They shared the probouleutic power and checked the legality of the enactments of the Spartan assembly, which ratified the proposals of gerontes and ephors.¹⁹

There is, however, no consensus amongst scholars about the actual workings and the balance of power among deliberative bodies of ancient Sparta. Some scholars have stressed the fundamental oligarchic features of Spartan deliberation, in which the assembly played a marginal role, whereas powerful officials made all [cont.]

¹⁹ See §4.3 below.

p. 128

the decisions.²⁰ By contrast, Ruzé has argued that the text of the Great Rhetra already envisaged a right of free speech for the damos, which could actively shape Spartan policy-making.²¹ In particular, Ruzé’s approach plays down the role of the gerousia in the probouleutic procedure, by arguing for an informal probouleusis during which the damos debated preliminary proposals without however taking a formal vote. Conversely, Schulz has made the case for a prominent role of the gerousia in Sparta’s institutional system, and has provided a picture of the legislative procedure in which the gerontes played a key role. Although Schulz recognizes that the decree-making process was achieved through interaction between the gerousia and the ephors, he argues that when there was no consensus amongst the gerontes about a motion to submit before the damos, the ephor did not introduce the bill to the assembly, instead an advisory assembly would be called to check the people’s opinion on an informal basis, and only afterwards could the gerousia either submit or veto the draft through their probouleutic power before an actual vote of the assembly.²² These approaches are, however, problematic, for several reasons. First, there is no evidence of informal or advisory meetings of the people’s assembly in Greek deliberative practice tout court, including in non-democratic contexts, and this assumption is mainly based on the idea of Sparta’s exceptionality. Second, assuming the existence of advisory meetings of the assembly fails to isolate the difference between the power of probouleusis and the power of nomophulakia, which was performed by the gerousia’s veto of decision after the debate in the assembly.²³

…

²⁰ Andrewes (1966) 5 n. 8; de Ste. Croix (1972) 127 n. 99; Jeffery (1976) 249.

p. 129

Unlike Classical Athens or other Hellenistic poleis, Sparta did not, however, show the same ‘epigraphic habit’ by inscribing state decrees and laws, which provide evidence for legal procedures regulating political deliberation, such as the delegation clauses discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.

…

²⁰Andrewes (1966) 5 n. 8; de Ste. Croix (1972) 127 n. 99; Jeffery (1976) 249.

p. 133

²¹ Ruzé (1997) 150–6.

²² Schulz (2011) 196–201.

²³ On these two powers of the gerousia see also Cartledge (1987) 123.

This is also confirmed by the appointment procedure of the gerontes— described by Plutarch—in which the damos played an important role in the election of the candidates by shouting (Hdt. 9.28.1; Thuc. 1.87; Plut. Lyc. 26). …

p. 136

…

4.3 Interaction between Ephors and Gerousia: ‘Divided’ Probouleusis and Nomophulakia

In Aristotle’s Politics, one finds the theoretical description of the workings of probouleusis in oligarchic regimes. At 1298b26–35, he states that in oligarchies there are probouleutic magistrates, called probouloi or nomophulakes, who put forward proposals to the dēmos, which can discuss only these motions.⁶² The dēmos cannot advance or debate proposals, except those already approved by these magistrates (ἔτι ἢ ταὐτὰ ψηφίζεσθαι τὸν δῆμον ἢ μηθὲν ἐναντίον τοῖς εἰσφερομένοις).⁶³ If one compares the Aristotelian account with the text of the Great Rhetra, it seems clear that the Aristotle’s statement matches the procedures envisaged in the Great Rhetra as well as in Spartan institutional practice. The text of the Great Rhetra is the following:

p. 137

Διὸς Συλλανίου καὶ Ἀθανᾶς Συλλανίας ἱερὸν ἱδρυσάμενον, φυλὰς φυλάξαντα καὶ ὠβὰς ὠβάξαντα, τριάκοντα γερουσίαν σὺν ἀρχαγέταις καταστήσαντα, ὥρας ἐξ ὥρας ἀπελλάζειν μεταξὺ Βαβύκας τε καὶ Κνακιῶνος, οὕτως εἰσφέρειν τε καὶ ἀφίστασθαι δάμῳ <…> καὶ κράτος. […] αἰ δὲ σκολιὰν ὁ δᾶμος ἕλοιτο, τοὺς πρεσβυγενέας καὶ ἀρχαγέτας ἀποστατῆρας ἦμεν.

Having founded a cult of Zeus Syllanios and Athena Syllania, having divided the people [or: ‘kept the divisions’] in tribes and having divided it in obai, having appointed a council of thirty members, including the founders, regularly celebrate the Apellai between Babyka and Knakion. Bring forward and reject (proposals) as follows: to the people must go <…>and final decision, […] but if the people speaks crookedly [or: ‘asks for something crooked’] the elders and the founders are to be rejecters. (trans. Nafissi)

The text of the Great Rhetra shows that, during the Archaic period, the gerousia and the kings had the power of putting proposals before the assembly (οὕτως εἰσφέρειν τε καὶ ἀφίστασθαι).⁶⁴ The so-called rider also implies that the gerousia could veto motions of the assembly in case the damos ‘speaks crookedly’, which means that the assembly could not pass an enactment different from the gerousia’s proposal without the possibility of it being vetoed—a clear example of the power of nomophulakia of the gerontes (Plut. Lyc. 6.3).

Evidence for the working of deliberation in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta is scanty. The very same terms probouleusis and nomophulakia, used in accordance with Aristotle’s usage, are not found in Sparta. The former, in Aristotle, indicates the power of the council or of the probouleutic officials (or a collaboration between these two bodies) to set the agenda of the people’s assemblies, in order to achieve efficient deliberation. The latter denotes the power to control the conformity of the motions of the assembly to the general laws which governed the life of the community. Both these powers were fundamental to preserving balance between popular power and rule of law typical of the Greek poleis from the Archaic period onwards. In Greek standard institutional terminology, the two terms probouloi or nomophulakes (and cognates) were often used interchangeably to indicate special magistrates (and functions) who had the power of drafting proposals and checking the legality of deliberations. For example, Plutarch uses the expression τὸ προβουλεύειν at Agis 11.1 to describe the powers of the Spartan gerontes when vetoing Agis’ rhētra. In Plutarch’s passage, the term indicates that the gerontes were acting as probouloi with their relevant powers of legislative review. In Aristotle’s terminology, that would constitute an exercise of nomophulakia. Despite the occasional terminological overlap, the Aristotelian classification [cont.]

p. 145

The probouleutic power of the ephors … The Spartan assembly had only the first of these prerogatives, and could enact or reject a proposal submitted by gerousia or ephors, but could not deliberate on an open probouleuma.⁹⁷ …

⁹⁷ Nafissi (2007) 335; pace Ruzé (1997). For the prohibition on emending proposals drafted by magistrates in the Spartan assembly see Arist. Pol. 1272a10–12 below; pace Andrewes (1966) 4, who drew an analogy with Athenian practice of open probouleumata. It is worth noting that even in fourth- century Athens, where the assembly had broad powers, in the period 403/2 BCE–323/2 BCE the number of preserved decrees on stone that were verbatim ratifications of the council’s probouleumata is higher than non-probouleumatic decrees amended by the dēmos (52 per cent to 48 per cent), see Oliver (2003) 46. For a different proportion, more leaning towards non-probouleumatic decrees, see Lambert (2017) 227–74 who studies the decrees of the period 352/1 BCE 323/2 BCE.

p. 220

…

When we move beyond the Athenian model of divided power, this analysis is further confirmed. The reconstruction of the Spartan deliberative process dem- onstrates that in Sparta there was no single sovereign institution but an oligarchic form of divided power. Although in Sparta boards of magistrates, such as the gerousia and the five ephors, enjoyed wide powers, ratification in the assembly was always necessary for passing a decree. The gerontes could block a decision approved by the assembly, but similarly to the Athenian lawcourts, they could not impose a political decision on the damos. Despite Demosthenes’ harsh criticism in Against Leptines, in which the gerousia is called ‘master of the many’ (δεσπότης ἐστὶ τῶν πολλῶν) and ‘with authority over the politeia’ (τῆς πολιτείας κυρίωι γενέσθαι), the gerontes could not pass decisions without the consent of the assembly and the ephors (Dem. 20.107). The collaboration between the two boards of officials was always needed in order to enact decrees.

…

Hodkinson 2015

s.v. gerousia

The council of elders in Greek cities, notably at Sparta. The Archaic and Classical Spartan gerousia comprised 28 men aged over 60, drawn de facto (if not de iure) from the leading families, together with the two kings. Membership was for life; vacancies were filled through competitive acclamation by the citizens. Its functions included control over resolutions introduced before the assembly (probouleusis), although its application to matters of foreign policy is debated; trial of important criminal cases (although there is dispute over royal trials); and supervision of laws and customs. Sparta’s Hellenistic and Roman gerousia underwent various changes. Membership was reduced to 23, the minimum age to perhaps 40, and the office became annual. Its supervisory role was taken by the nomophylakes, who with the ephors assumed much of the probouleutic function. The council of Roman Sparta was a composite of all three sets of officials.

Councils of elders, varying in size and criteria for membership, are attested in certain other Classical poleis. The character of Hellenistic and Roman gerousiai (sometimes styled hiera, ‘sacred’), especially common in Asia Minor, is disputed; but they probably functioned primarily as select social or religious societies of rich and well-born citizens, frequently centred on the gymnasium.

Bibliography

Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 7. 1264–1268. (WorldCat)

G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (1972), 124–38, 349–54.

P. Cartledge and A. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta (1989), esp. 51–2, 198–9. (WorldCat)

A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City (1940), 225–6.

J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerousia (1941).

Kennel 2010

[My Kindle library]

[1]

pp. 46–49

p. 45

The Great Rhetra appears in Plutarch’s Lycurgus, 6.1–2, where the biographer presents it as an oracle Lycurgus himself conveyed back from Delphi. Despite its contentious first appearance, in Pausanias’ polemical pamphlet against the imperialist policy of Lysander, the victor of Aegospotami, almost all historians agree on the Rhetra’s authenticity, but concord ceases there. Everything else about the document – its date, significance, grammar, syntax, unity, even the reading of the text itself [cont.]

p. 46

– has been subject to intense debate. In fact, it has been claimed, not unjustifiably, that more ink has been spilt over the Rhetra’s few lines than over any other comparable text from antiquity. Plutarch presents the text as follows:

Lycurgus attached so much importance to this institution [i.e. the Gerousia] that he brought back from Delphi an oracle about it, which they call a rhêtra. It goes like this:

after setting up a sanctuary to Zeus Syllanius and Athena Syllania, having tribed the tribes and obed the obes,

having established thirty men as a Gerousia along with archagetai (kings)

to hold the Apellai from month to month (?) between Babyka and Knakion,

in this way to bring in and stand aside from [legislation?],

†that for the Damos there be validity and power†

Plutarch then states that the kings Polydorus and Theopompus later on made an addition to the Rhetra, because the many (hoi polloi) were “twisting and contravening the intent of proposals by their additions and deletions.” Despite Plutarch, however, virtually all historians regard this addition, known as the Rider, as an integral part of the original Rhetra, mainly on grounds of syntax and terminology. Thus, as the seventh and last line of the Rhetra, it gives the final say in legislation firmly to the Gerousia and kings, who jointly comprise a chamber of sober second thought:

If the Damos should speak (or “choose”) crookedly, that the elders and archagetai be standers aside.

In translating the Rhetra, I have tried to follow scholarly consensus, but without smoothing out the text’s oddities of phraseology and structure. The sixth line, for instance, presents a particularly knotty textual problem: since the manuscript reading is mostly gibberish, historians have had to reconstruct it completely, resulting in several different possible understandings of this obviously vital line, ranging from the damos being assigned “validity and power” (kurian . . . kai kratos) to the damos having the right to make counter-proposals (antagorian) along with their “power” over the final say in legislation.

Textual problems are but a small part of the interpretative challenges the Rhetra presents for us today. Even by the second century C.E., much [cont.]

p. 47

… He [Plutarch] also noted that Aristotle said that Knakion was a river and Babyka a bridge (Plut. Lyc. 6.3–4). …

p. 48

…

3 This and the following line represent severe checks on the constitutional powers of the kings. Here, the Rhetra abolishes the royal power to determine the size of the advisory council. From now on, the council must consist of twenty-eight members in addition to the kings themselves, who are styled by their military titles, archagetai.

4 Festivals in honor of Apollo, at which the popular assembly meets, are to be fixed in time and place and are no longer at the whim of the kings – an important advance from Homeric practice. Most scholars would identify the Gerousia as the subject of the infinitive apellazein (“to hold assemblies”), which implies that the elders and kings preside jointly over meetings of the popular assembly at the Apellai. We should note that nowhere in the text of the Rhetra as it stands can the kings take action by themselves, another sign of their diminished power.

5 If the Gerousia is the subject of the infinitive in line 4, the same should be true of the infinitives in line 5. The power of introducing and rejecting legislation is thus vested solely in the kings and their council, as Plutarch indeed explained. This would confirm the [cont.]

p. 49

joint presidency of kings and elders over the Assembly during the Apellai.

6 The only ungarbled words in this line are kai kratos, “and power.” In the immediate context, this should be the power of effective decision-making. According to the current restoration of the rest of the line, the Damos should hold this particular power, along with the quality of kuria (“validity”), in other words, be a body whose decisions have legal force. This provision may not be quite so “progressive” as it initially seems, for, as has been suggested, it would effectively limit the sphere of constitutionally valid action on the part of non-aristocrats solely to the Assembly, a body effectively under the thumb of the aristocratic council and kings.

7 The real power of the kings and elders emerges nakedly in the final line, the Rider of Plutarch. Should the Assembly officially express its legal opinion in a “crooked” way, its members will act as apos-tatêres (“standers aside”). The intent of this provision seems quite clear even if the precise connotations of the Greek elude us. Should the Assembly’s decisions displease the kings and Gerousia, they could invalidate them, perhaps by actually walking out, which would cause the Assembly’s dissolution.

The Rhetra has the flavor of a compromise, albeit a lopsided one. The Damos gained by having regular meetings of the Assembly and by having a council of elders of a fixed size. The elite gained by ensuring that its control of legal decision-making remained unbroken at the cost of some reduction in its freedom of action. Despite its apparent inequity, the Rhetra’s solution was remarkably successful: Sparta avoided the political upheavals that transformed other Greek cities and the procedural framework the Rhetra introduced still functioned even in the Hellenistic period.

…

pp. 93–114

6 Governing Sparta

It is easy to underestimate the kings of Sparta. For Aristotle, a Spartan king was nothing more than a sort of permanent army chief-of-staff (Arist. Pol. 3.9.2 [1285a]), while Xenophon made him into a run-of- the-mill polis magistrate (Xen. Lac. 15.1). The kings’ powers seem pale in comparison with those of the ephors. But Lysander, the hero of Aegospotami, schemed to become king, not ephor, and the names of kings are far more prominent than those of any ephor. Spartan kings were not absolute rulers in any sense of the term, but they had the resources to deploy patronage and prestigious (and lucrative) postings, so that in the hands of dynamic, ambitious, and talented incumbents the kingship might gain an abiding, indeed dominant influence over the course of Spartan policy for decades.

Herodotus saw the kingship as one of the institutions marking Sparta as a distinct society. The survival of a Greek monarchy into the Classical period would have been reason enough to attract his attention, but the Spartans had an even stronger claim to uniqueness – a dyarchy, or double kingship, held by two different royal families both claiming Heraclid ancestry. The Spartans characteristically attributed the foundation of their double kingship to an oracle that assigned joint rule to Eurysthenes and Procles, the twin sons of Aristodemus, the great-great-grandson of Heracles. According to Herodotus (Hdt. 6.52), after Aristodemus’ death their mother Argeia refused to divulge who was the elder so that both would rule. …

…

As with so many Spartan institutions, the ephorate’s origins are shrouded in mystery. …

While the ephors changed annually, Sparta’s other prominent public body almost matched the kingship in stability of membership. The Gerousia was an ancient institution, rooted in the city’s history and descended from the early kings’ circle of advisers.

p. 104

…

attempting to head off a succession crisis during the reign of Anaxandridas (c. 560–520 B.C.E.), the ephors could merely advise the king to divorce his barren wife and remarry. After Anaxandridas ignored this advice, only an insistent threat from the ephors and Gerousia collectively to take the matter before the Assembly, where the Spartans might reach a decision “less than good” for him, forced the king to accede to their counsel that he take a second wife. This may indicate that the ephors had yet to gain the overwhelming influence over all officials which so impressed Xenophon (Lac. 8.3) in the fourth century, since Anaxandridas only yielded when confronted with a possible decree from the popular Assembly.

p. 111

The fourth main pillar of the Classical Spartan constitution was the popular Assembly, called the Ekklesia, not the Apella as once thought. 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. The contrast in our knowledge of the two bodies, however, could not be more stark. Compared to the wealth of detailed evidence about the Athenian Ekklesia, very [cont.]

p. 112

little is indisputably known about the Spartan Assembly. For example, in the present state of our evidence it is impossible to determine conclusively who had the right to speak at meetings. Almost everyone who is recorded as having spoken can be identified, with widely varying degrees of certainty, as an ephor, king, or member of the Gerousia. But who the possessors of various “opinions” mentioned by the historians were and whether they might have expressed them in debates remains unknown.

In contrast, we know that, unlike the Athenian Ekklesia, the Spartan Assembly could not initiate or emend legislation nor make counterproposals. Only voting on the proposition before it, handed down from the Gerousia or introduced by the ephors, was permitted. The Great Rhetra (Plut. Lyc. 6.1–2) assigned the Assembly power, albeit significantly compromised, to pass legally valid acts and seems (as Aristotle and Plutarch believed) to have provided for regular meetings at a fixed location, but where Babyka and Knakion actually were is a complete mystery to us, while the Greek phrase ex horas eis horas used to indicate the frequency of meetings can be translated “from season to season,” which implies very few meetings annually, or “from month to month.” The second interpretation may be the correct one, as it enjoys the slender support of a late scholion to a passage in Thucydides (1.67), which states that the Spartans met at the time of the full moon. Besides regular meetings, the Assembly may also have met at times of crisis, as Xenophon’s remark (Hell. 3.3.8) that the ephors did not have time to convene “even the Little Assembly” to deal with the Cinadon conspiracy implies they had the power to call the full Assembly together when necessary. The ephors also summoned and presided over regular meetings of the Assembly (Thuc. 1.67.3) in the fifth century. In the early years, meetings would have been at the kings’ pleasure; only with the passage of the Great Rhetra were regular meetings legally mandated. By the later sixth century, however, the ephors had acquired this power, which they used to great effect in forcing king Anaxandridas to bend to their will in the matter of his conjugal arrangements (Hdt. 5.40.1).

The Assembly was also involved in settling constitutional disputes relating to the royal houses: the ephors succeeded in convincing Anaxandridas to change his mind only when, along with the Gerousia, they threatened to put the matter before the Assembly (Hdt. 5.40.1). The trial of Cleomenes I’s rival king Demaratus in 491 concluded with a vote “by the Spartiates” consult Delphi about his legitimacy [cont.]

p. 113

(Hdt. 6.66.1). And at the end of the fifth century, the struggle for the succession after Agis II’s death in 400 was settled by “the city” choosing Agesilaus over Leotychidas (Xen.

Welwei 2006

Brill’s New Pauly

s.v. Gerousia

(γερουσία; gerousía, ‘Council of Elders’).

I. Graeco-Roman

In Sparta the gerousia was probably originally an assembly of representatives from leading families. There it gained its institutional character from early on and consisted of the two kings and 28 gérontes (γέροντες), who were appointed for life and were at least 60 years old. Election took place on the basis of the volume of the acclamation in the apélla (ἀπέλλα), with ‘electoral officials’ in a closed room deciding who got the strongest applause (Plut. Lycurgus 26) [1]. According to the Great Rhetra (Plut. Lycurgus 6), the Spartan gerousia could submit proposals to the apélla as early as the 7th cent., but did not have to accept the decision of the dâmos (δᾶμος) based on the acclamation; thus, decisions could only be made with the consent of all organs of the polis (except for the not yet mentioned ephors). This consensus-oriented procedure is characteristic of pre-state societies. The powers of the gerousia were never formally rescinded, but it is hardly evident in the transmission of political decisions in the classical period. As far as that is concerned, the Spartan gérontes were neither ‘rulers of the crowd’ (δεσπόται τῶν πολλῶν; despótai tôn pollôn: Dem. Or. 20,107) nor ‘helmsmen of the state’ (Pol. 6,45,5), however, this did not exclude consultations between the éphoroi and the gérontes in critical situations (Xen. Hell. 3,3,8). The gerousia had political importance primarily as the tribunal hearing cases against military commanders and Spartan kings, as well as capital offences (Xen. Lac. 10,2; Aristot. Pol. 1275b 10; Paus. 3,5,2). Their corruptibility (Aristot. Pol. 1270b 35ff.) is evident in recorded trials (Xen. Hell. 5,4,24-33). Their function, however, was obviously only formal during the Hellenistic period in the context of the affirmation by oath of an alliance with Athens in 268 BC (Stv 3,476, l. 91) [2. 117ff.]. As a consultative body the gerousia was ‘reactivated’ in 243-242 for political reasons (Plut. Agis 11), when it supported the intentions of Agis [4] IVs opponents with a majority of one vote and did not present the latter’s reform plans to the public assembly.

Aristotle (Pol. 1272a7-8; 34-35) and Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 149 [Str. 10,4,17]) compared the Spartan gérontes to the council members in Cretan poleis elected from the former kósmoi who, however, were officially described as preígistoi (πρείγιστοι; StV 2,216) in an agreement between Gortyn and Rhittenia (end of the 5th cent.) and, several times elsewhere, collectively as bōlá (βωλά = βουλή, boulḗ ) [3. 112ff.]. According to Ephorus (in Str. 10,4,22), they were regarded as advisers to the highest-ranking officials. Legally, their powers lay primarily in the area of controlling the civil service. In Elis, until the institution of a council of the 500 privileged families in the 5th cent., they formed a council of gérontes, appointed for life and limited to 90 (Aristot. Pol. 1306a 12ff.). Originated from similar councils of elders probably also were the amnḗmones (ἀμνήμονες) in Cnidus (Plut. Mor. 291d) and the so-called Eighty in Argos [4. 56ff.], who in 420 BC still participated in the swearing of oaths for a state treaty (StV 2,193; Thuc. 5,47,8). According to Diodorus (16,65,6-8), a gerousia existed in Corinth at the time of Timoleon which was responsible for criminal cases and for decisions on foreign policy. It was probably identical to the eighty-member boulḗ, to which a pre-advisor and nine other bouleutaí (βουλευταί) were appointed from each of the eight historical phyles of Corinth.

After the battle of Ipsos, a gerousia was instituted by Lysimachus in Ephesus (and probably in other poleis of his kingdom) (Syll.3 353; Str. 14,1,21), which, however, did not gain importance in its own right. The gerousia mentioned by Polybius (38,13,1) in the Achaean League in 146 BC was probably identical to the college of dāmiorgoí of that time [5. 231]. A member of the gerousia in the Arcadian Orchomenus performed official duties as a witness in acquittal proceedings that took place after 146 (IG V 2, 345). The gerousia is frequently mentioned as communal body in inscriptions of the Imperial period from Thrace and Asia Minor, as well as from the Mediterranean area. Greek authors also used the term gerousia to designate the Carthaginian and Roman Senates. In the rules of the Iobacchae in Eleusis, the gerousia had a private character, Syll.3 1109 (c. AD 178).

Welwei, Karl-Wilhelm (Bochum)

Bibliography

1 E. Flaig, Die spartanische Abstimmung nach Lautstärke, in: Historia 42, 1993, 139-160

2 H. Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hell. Geschichte des 3. Jh. v.Chr., 1972

3 St. Link, Das griech. Kreta, 1994

4 M. Wörrle, Unters. zur Verfassungsgesch. von Argos im 5. Jh. v.Chr., (thesis) 1964

5 J. A. O. Larsen, Greek Federal States, 1968.

St. Link, Der Kosmos Sparta, 1994, 76-79

L. Thommen, Lakedaimonion Politeia, 1996, 37f.

BNPAUTHOR

Brill’s New Pauly

[BNPLINK s.v. BNPARTICLE]

OCDAUTHOR

Oxford Classical Dictionary

[OCDLINK s.v. OCDARTICLE]