government the passing of laws was reserved for a smaller
body known as the “lawgivers.” Th e ekklesia met four times
per month (at least by the mid-fourth century), with the fi rst
of these meetings being considered the most important, for it
dealt with military matters, the grain supply, and the tenure
of offi ceholders (who might be removed if charged with cor-
ruption or incompetence). Anyone who wished was entitled
to speak, though the historical sources indicate that in prac-
tice most of those who addressed the ekklesia were accom-
plished politicians.
Th e extent of popular participation in the ekklesia is the
subject of some debate. Certain procedures required a quo-
rum of 6,000 citizens and were held in the Agora instead
of the usual meeting place on the nearby Pnyx. From this
we can infer that most meetings were smaller—one source
claims that no regular meeting was ever attended by more
than 5,000 citizens. Modern demographers estimate a citi-
zen population for Athens of between 20,000 and 50,000,
and given the diffi culty of getting to the city from outlying
districts as well as the need of most Athenians to work for
a living, it seems likely that most citizens attended only oc-
casionally. By the late fi ft h century there were inducements
for them to do so: Th ey were off ered a modest amount of pay
for attendance, and before meetings Scythian slaves (who
served as the police force of Athens) used a red-dyed rope to
herd stragglers from the Agora toward the Pnyx. Th is seems
to have worked, for the Pnyx was enlarged twice during the
fourth century, indicating growing attendance even in an era
of reduced population.
Aristotle suggested that in an ideal polis citizens would
have the opportunity to govern and be governed in turn.
Athens met this criterion well: Counting the members of the
boule, there were perhaps 1,000 offi ceholders at any one time.
Th us, at any given moment 2 to 5 percent of the citizen body
held public offi ce, and most of whom would be replaced by
new offi ceholders the subsequent year. Th e vast majority of
offi ces were appointed by lot, the most notable exception be-
ing the offi ce of general (strategos), of whom 10 were elected
each year, one per tribe.
Th e generalship was also unusual in allowing those who
held it to run for reelection, with the result that skilled politi-
cians such as Pericles could remain in offi ce for years. (In fact,
he was elected for 15 years running). In the hands of an able
politician the offi ce of general was concerned with more than
military matters: Pericles was responsible for the building of
the Parthenon and for the revision of Athenian citizenship
laws, and he was the de facto leader of Athens at the height
of its empire. Nevertheless nothing could be accomplished in
Athens without the will of the people: Pericles’ dominance of
Athenian political life depended on his ability to maintain
popular approval and to persuade the ekklesia to do what he
wanted. On one occasion, at least, he failed badly and in 430
was fi ned by the ekklesia and possibly removed from offi ce.
He did not, however, suff er the fate sometimes meted out to
successful public fi gures, that of ostracism.
Th e greatest strengths of Athenian democracy—its en-
couragement of mass participation and its insistence on di-
rect popular sovereignty—were in some cases also its greatest
fl aws. Th e institution of ostracism involved an annual meet-
ing of the ekklesia, held in the Agora to accommodate the
required number of 6,000 voters. Citizens would write on a
potsherd (ostrakon, hence “ostracism”) the name of promi-
nent fellow citizen they wished to send into exile for 10 years.
Originally designed as a check against tyranny, ostracism was
used frequently in the years down to 450 and occasionally af-
ter that until 418. For critics of the democracy (and there were
many, both within and outside of Athens) it stood as a symbol
of the fi ckleness of the demos, the people.
Similarly, the emotions of the people could be easily
swayed in times of crisis: Th ucydides reports a vote in the
ekklesia to put to death the citizens of Mytilene (an ally that
rebelled in 427 b.c.e., during the Peloponnesian War), fol-
lowed by remorse and a vote to rescind the decree on the very
next day. A ship sent in pursuit of the one bearing the original
order reached Mytilene just in time to prevent the mass ex-
ecution. Nor was the power of the ekklesia subject to eff ective
checks and balances: In 406 b.c.e. the trial of the victorious
generals at the naval battle of Arginousai (for failing to res-
cue survivors from the water) was clearly unconstitutional,
yet the generals were condemned and executed. Neverthe-
less, the vast majority of Athenian citizens seem to have been
happy with the basics of their form of government and with
the ideology of isonomia.THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION
As the implacable enemy of Athens during its democratic era
(particularly in the fi ft h century), Sparta is generally thought
of as an oligarchy. In fact, the Spartan constitution was a
mixture of oligarchic, regal, and democratic elements that
together represent a unique solution to the problems faced
by the polis.
Th e Spartans traced their form of government to the leg-
endary lawgiver Lycurgus, who was thought to have lived in
the early seventh century b.c.e. (though his historical exis-
tence is subject to debate). He is said to have authored (with
advice from the oracle of Apollo at Delphi) the Great Rhetra,
a set of pronouncements that set out the basic principles of
Spartan law. Th e Spartans’ favorite word to describe their
system of government was eunomia, “good laws” (contrasted
with the Athenians’ isonomia, “equality under the law”), em-
phasizing the collective excellence of the Spartan citizen body
as brought about by their unique way of life.
Th e democratic element in Sparta appears in the process
by which all Spartan men became equal citizens and in their
participation in the Assembly. Th e Spartan state maintained
a precarious hold on power over its neighbors from Messenia,
who had been conquered in a series of wars in the eighth and
seventh centuries; their land was taken and distributed in
supposedly equal shares to all Spartan citizens. (In reality,
land distribution seems to have been uneven from the begin-government organization: Greece 529