We can discuss the political life of Athens in greater detail. The basis of the Athenian state lies in the deme: the village or town quarter. The citizens who inhabited a deme gathered in a local assembly to decide on local matters: the organization of a religious festival, public safety, and the management of local finances. The deme also carried out tasks for the central government, such as the selection of candidates for several governing bodies, the maintenance of a kind of registry office (very important for establishing who was a citizen and who was not), and the mobilization of citizen soldiers in case of war. Foreign policy, law making, and jurisdiction were not the responsibility of the deme.
The ekklesia, the assembly of all citizens, was literally an assembly that every citizen could take part in: there were no representatives; Athenian democracy was a direct democracy. When the ekklesiastikon, assembly pay, was instituted not long after 400 BC, even the poor who could not afford to lose a day’s wages were able to participate in governing their polis. The assembly had the decisive voice in Athenian policy making. In the 5th century BC, there probably were ten or eleven regular meetings every year, although additional ones could be called for. In the 4th century BC, there were at first 30 days on which the assembly met, which later increased to 40.
It has been estimated that the Pnyx, the hill opposite the Acropolis where the ekklesia met, could seat about 6000 men. Apparently, 6000 was deemed sufficient in order to speak of “an assembly of the whole of the Athenian people.” Of course, 6000 was a small minority of the total number of citizens, but as we encounter the same figure in the quorum for holding an ostracism and in the total number of jurors, we must conclude that 6000 was seen in Athens as a representative group.
The agenda of the assembly was the responsibility of the boule, the Council of 500. The boule had to obey certain rules: every year ten assembly meetings, or at least some of them, had to be dedicated to a set of fixed subjects: the grain supply, military matters, and the appointment of magistrates. But otherwise, the boule had a free hand. With any item
Figure 22 Stele with an Athenian decree (408/407 BC). An Athenian decree honoring one Oiniades of Skiathos, 408/7 BC. Oiniades, an inhabitant of the island of Skiathos (near the Thracian coast on the route from Athens to the north), is praised for the services which he offers to Athenians who pass through Skiathos. The text opens with the following formulaic passage: “Gods. This is a decree of the Council and People of Athens, during the prytany of the fule Antiochis, when Eucleides was secretary and Hierocles president. The proposal was made by Euctemon.” Next, the proposal is given: it is proposed that Oiniades and his descendants should be allowed to call themselves proxenos and benefactor of the Athenians. He will be protected by Athenian power, and on the day after the passing of this decree he will be invited to join the prutaneis for a meal held in his honor in their hall on the Athenian Agora. A proxenos was a citizen of a polis who acted as a kind of honorary consul to the citizens of another polis. In the 5th century, the proxenoi of Athens played a part in the extension of Athenian power over the members of the Delian League, which explains the fact that Athens extends its protection to Oiniades. The decree also mentions an amendment: it is decided to change Skiathos into Old Skiathos: Oiniades comes from Old Skiathos, lying inland, and not from New Skiathos on the coast. Apparently, the Council liked to be quite precise. It is also decreed that the text of the decree should be inscribed on a marble stele that should be positioned on the Acropolis. That is where this stele was found. Now it is in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. Drawing © F. G. Naerebout
Included in the agenda, they could give advice on how to vote. This advice {probouleuma) was not binding, and the assembly could negate it, amend it, or suggest an alternative.
The boule counted 500 council members (bouleutai). Every citizen 30 years old or over was eligible to be a bouleutes for a period of one year. One could be re-appointed just once. The bouleutai came from all over Attica: as we have seen in chapter 4.1, this was accomplished by taking 50 men from each of the ten fulai. The fulai selected their 50 bouleutai by the drawing of lots among the demes members. The boule met quite often, and the ten groups of 50 bouleutai who came from the same fule took turns in manning the executive committee that took care of daily business. The 50 members of that committee were called the prutaneis; one-third of them were supposed to be on duty for 24 hours. Consequently, any council member had but little time left for his own affairs during his year in office. From the middle of the 5th century or thereabouts, a council member received council pay, the misthos, but this misthos was less than a proper day’s wages. So it does not come as a surprise that among the bouleutai whose social background can be traced, the wealthier citizens were overrepresented.
Preparing the meetings of the assembly was the main task of the boule. But the council also had to ensure that decisions by the assembly were carried out, and especially to keep a check on third parties hired for certain tasks. The council, or commissions composed of council members, kept an eye on all servants of the polis, supervised shipbuilding, the provisioning of the fleet, the tendering and execution of public works, and were involved in the organization of religious rites. The boule also functioned as court of the first instance for all cases that had to do with these specific tasks.
The boule should not be seen as subservient to the assembly; the probouleutic task gave the boule quite a lot of power. The assembly usually followed the council’s advice, and when the council refused to put something on the agenda, it was effectively blocked from discussion in the assembly. So, in many respects the boule should be seen as the linchpin of Athenian government. This was simply an issue of effectiveness: a group of 500, or 50, will find it easier to discuss a matter thoroughly than an assembly of 6000. The assembly was quite willing to leave the less important decisions to the council. The council also took emergency decisions when there was no time to wait until the next assembly meeting came along. The assembly, however, could reverse such decisions, and always had the final say in any matter. Thus, a strong boule never constituted a threat to Athens’ radical democracy as it unfolded during the 5th century.
The so-called jury courts that came into being in the 5th century BC, were, in a way, the assembly functioning as a popular court. The jury courts were based on Solon’s Heliaia, and were also called, now in the plural, heliaiai. Now, however, they were courts of the first instance as well, and no longer just courts of appeal, as Solon’s Heliaia had been. They were also called dikasteria, after the dikastai, the members of the jury. In fact, the dikastai were not quite comparable to jury members, because they were juror and judge at the same time. The presiding magistrate was no judge. The number of dikastai could vary from 201 to 2501, depending on how serious the case in hand was judged to be. During the 5th century, the dikastai were selected at random from a pool of 6000 citizens of 30 years or over; in the 4th century, every citizen could be a juror. Since the days of Pericles, citizens got paid for this important task. There was no public prosecutor, nor any council: every
Case was brought forward by a private individual. Possibly a rhetor was hired in order to write a rousing speech, but accusation or defense was left to the parties themselves.
In the 4th century BC, everyone who proposed a decree in the ekklesia could be brought before a jury court if the decree was considered to be “unlawful,” that is to say, “incompatible with the existing laws of the polis.” If the verdict went against the accused, the proposal and the decree, if the assembly had voted in favor of the proposal, were indeed declared unlawful and the instigator himself was fined. This was intended to avoid the misuse of democratic law making, but of course it could also be a weapon in the hands of rival politicians, subverted more or less in the same way that ostracism (which was no longer in vogue after the end of the 5th century BC) had been.
World History
