HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 How Often Did the Athenian Ekklesia Meet? A Reply M ogens Herman Hansen A DECADE AGO I advanced the views (a) that, in the 350's, the Athenians put a limit on the number of ekklesiai to be held in a prytany and (b) that an ekklesia synkletos was not an extra meeting, but one of the prescribed meetings held extraordinarily, e.g. in an emergency with shorter notice than usual, sometimes even over­ night.1 In its fully developed form my theory is that, in the 350's, the Athenians held three meetings of the assembly in a prytany, but that the number in the early 340's was raised to four, each with a fixed agenda, as described by Aristotle in the Ath.Pol. (43.3-6). 2 This new interpretation of the number and types of meeting of the Athenian ekklesia has sometimes been met with opposition or doubt, but the critique has been stated only briefly and vaguely in the form 'I am not persuaded', vel sim. 3 Recently, however, a full discussion of my views has been undertaken by Edward M. Harris,4 who offers a clever and clearly argued restatement of the traditional views (a) that there 1 In referring to my own publications I use the following abbreviations: AE=The Athenian Ecclesia. A Collection of Articles 1976-83 (Copenhagen 1983); A V=Die athe­ nische Voksversammlung im Zeitalter des Demosthenes (=Xenia 13 [Konstanz 1984]); AA=The Athenian Assembly (Oxford 1987). My views were first presented in "How Often did the Ecclesia Meet?" GRBS 18 (1977) 43-70 (=AE 35-72). They were further developed in ", E/c/c).:lw·ta I:V'Y/CA'l/TO~ in Hellenistic Athens," GRBS 20 (1979) 149-56 (=AE 73-81) and "When Did the Athenian Ecclesia Meet?" GRBS 23 (1982) 331-50 (=AE 83-102). 2 Cf the addenda in AE 63-72, 81, and 102; M. H. Hansen and F. W. Mitchel, "The Number of Ecclesiai in Fourth-Century Athens," SymbOslo 59 (1984) 13-19, and AV 3Ifn.I13. 3 Cf e.g. P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981) 521f; K. W. Welwei, Die griechische Polis (Stuttgart 1983) 200; J. Bleicken, Die athenische Demokratie (Shoningh 1985) 105. The only argument against my view had been that of M. M. Markle, "Jury Pay and Assembly Pay at Athens," Crux. Essays . .. G. E. M. de Ste Croix (=History of Political Thought VI [Exeter 1986]) 274 n.18. Markle holds that the ekklesiai convened on Elaph. 18 and 19 of 347/6 must be reckoned as two meetings, thus giving five ekklesiai in prytany VIII instead of four; but cf AA 29 with n.198, and 43 infra. 4 "How Often Did the Athenian Assembly Meet?" CQ N.S. 36 (1986) 363-77 (hereafter 'Harris'). 35 HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 36 HOW OffEN DIDTHEEKKLESIA MEET? was no restriction on the number of ekklesiai to be held, and (b) that ekklesiai synkletoi were always extra meetings. The greater part of Harris's article is a rejection of my interpretation of a number of passages, but he begins by stating two positive reasons for accepting the traditional view. (1) An a priori argument: there must have been extra meetings, and any restriction on the people's right to assembly is against common sense. (2) The lexicographers and scholi­ asts who define ekklesia synkletos as an extra meeting deserve to be taken seriously and should not be "tossed out without further consid­ eration" (366). I will discuss these two essential points first, starting with the a priori argument that it is unbelievable that the Athenians could have had a maximum number of ekklesiai in a prytany. Harris admits that "the assembly tried, especially in the fourth cen­ tury B.C., to conduct its business according to set rules"; but he con­ tends (1) that "these rules were self-imposed" and (2) they "did not represent any limitation on the powers of the assembly" (364, my italics). The sources we have tend to disprove both of Harris's assump­ tions. Re (1), in 346/5, for example, the Athenians passed a law by which front-row seats in the ekklesia were reserved for all members of one tribe entrusted with the maintenance of order during the meeting. 5 This vop.os on the EVKocrp.la TWV PTlTOProV was in all probability, like other nomoi, passed by the nomothetai and not by the ekklesia.6 Thus the rule was not self-imposed. Re (2), in or around 355 the ekklesia was deprived of all jurisdiction in political trials, and thereafter all major public actions opened in the ekklesia were referred to the dikasteria which heard the case and passed the verdict. 7 We do not know precisely how and when the reform was enacted, but that it took place is no longer doubted, not even by my critics,8 who are sceptical about the limited number of ek­ klesiai I propose. Pace Harris, this reform unquestionably imposed an important limitation on the powers of the assembly. Next, Harris believes that a restriction on the number of meetings per prytany "would have inhibited the ability of the assembly to re- 5 Aeschin. 1.33f, 3.4; Oem. 25.9; cf AE 30-32. 6 We have a few examples of general, permanent rules which, in an emergency, were passed by the ekklesia and took the form of psephismata (cf AE 183-91); but in our sources there is no example whatsoever, after ca 400, of the ekklesia passing a nomos (cf AE 163f). Other nomoi regulating the assembly's powers and procedures include e.g. the merismos: cf P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 101- 03;AE 191f. 7 Cf AE 60 with further references. 8 Cf e.g. Rhodes (supra n.3) 525. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 37 spond to emergencies" (364). Let us suppose, for example, that an emergency occurred at the end of a prytany when all four meetings had been held. "Would the prytaneis have simply turned to the people and said that they could not call another meeting and that the matter would just have to wait until the beginning of the next prytany?" (364). Of course not. They would have broken the rules, as all people have done in all states throughout history. But that does not prove that there could not have been any rule as to the number of assemblies to be held constitutionally in a prytany. As a parallel, I adduce two examples from modem constitutions. In Texas and in Montana the legislature meets only every second year. This rule is often felt to be a serious obstacle to the constant demand in modem society for new legislation. But the rule is laid down in the constitutions of both states, and all attempts to have the constitutions changed have so far failed. Here there is a clear and strongly-felt limitation on the legislature's right to assemble, and the only escape has been, very exceptionally, to ask the governor to call an extra session.9 Again, in many states of the United States and also in the United Kingdom, sessions of the legislature or Parliament or their committees can run for a fixed number of days only. What happens if important business has not yet been transacted when the time is run­ ning out? The clock is stopped just before midnight and the session goes on, sometimes for several hours, sometimes even for several days, under the fiction that stopping the clock is stopping time. 1o Harris argues that a restriction on the number of ekklesiai would have been in conflict with common sense and would have to be vio­ lated in an emergency. He is absolutely right, but this is precisely what has always happened in all states in all periods. Thus, I have no difficulty in believing both that the Athenians had a rule limiting the number of ekklesiai per prytany and that, occasionally, they broke the rule and held an extra meeting. Whether this exceptional extra meet­ ing was warranted by some exemption clause in the law regulating the number of ekklesiai (the Texas/Montana model) or was held unconsti­ tutionally (the stopping-the-clock model) we do not know, since we have no indisputable evidence that such a meeting was ever held. But 9 Constitution of Texas (1876) Art. III Sect. 5; Constitution of Montana (1972) Art. V Sect. 6. 10 On the Montana legislators' practice of stopping the clock on the last day of a session cf J. J. Lopach, ed., We the People of Montana (Missoula 1983) 69. The device is used in many other states, e.g. in Texas, regularly for a few hours only but sometimes for longer periods; and in Britain, committees of the House of Commons may stop the clock for several days. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 38 HOW OffEN DID THE EKKLESIA MEET? the Athenians may well have convened such sessions of the ekklesia on more than one occasion in the course of the period ca 355-322. We simply do not know. Harris's other reason for accepting the traditional definition of ek­ klesia synkletos is that it is endorsed by some scholiasts and lexicogra­ phers (364-66). He grants me that several of the lexicographical notes are muddled and betray ignorance of Athenian institutions. Further­ more, of the three lexicographical notes quoted by me (AE 73) and reproduced by Harris (364) only two (1: ad Dem. 18.73 and 24.20) define ekklesia synkletos as an extra meeting held in an emergency. I I The third note, by Harpocration, is ambiguous and defines ekklesia synkletos as an emergency meeting only: TC;W EI(lCA71CTLWV ai IJ-tv EC f6ov~ \ \ ~ " , ", 't ',f.. !t t' , 6 /CaL /CaTa lJ-71va Ei'LVOVTO· EL uE TL E~aL."v71S /CaTE7rE~ELEV WCTTE i'EVECT aL , 'I.' t' , 'I. ~ ''I. ' 'I. 'A 6 ' , ~ , E/C/CI\.71CTLav, aVT71 E/CaI\.ELTO CTvy/CI\.71To~ E/C/CI\.71CTLa· ~71IJ-0CT EV71~ EV TC!' /CaT AlCTX lvov. Harpocration is undoubtedly the most reliable of the three, and he is even good enough to identify his source, Dem. 19.123: ',f.. Q ~ " \ \ ''I. ' 'I. ' , , , t ',f.. Th· d E."OtJOVVTO U7J 1J-71 CTVi'/CI\.71TOS E/C/CI\.7JCTLa YEVOLT E~aL."v71~. IS passage oes support the view that ekklesia synkletos was an emergency meeting, but contains no explicit information about whether or not it was an additional meeting. Thus, it is cautiously and correctly reproduced by Harpocration; Harris notes, "even though the authors of the scholia and lexica in this case do not name any sources, it does appear that they must have had some" (365). But Harpocration does mention his source, and the two scholia may be based only on the same source. The difference is that, like many modem historians, they tend to infer that an emergency meeting must be an extra meeting. It is probably worth while to elaborate the point that the learned Harpocration cites Dem. 19.123 as his source. This is an indication (but admittedly no proof) that he could find no better source to quote. The reason may well be that the lexicographers were as badly informed about the exact meaning of ekklesia synkletos as we are today. Admit­ tedly they had access to hundreds of speeches now lost. Nevertheless they may have found no better source to rely on for the meaning of ek­ klesia synkletos than Dem. 19.123. This is not at all surprising. There 11 It may be useful to adduce a fourth late account of the ekklesia synkletos, Liban. Dec/. 32.18: -yJ,.,.n Of (TO l3aAJ.vnov) 1fA~lova ,cll/( Tf/S i/(/(A7IulaS TplTOV O,oovu7IS tlCJ.UTOV JL1Jvos, Yva TOVS o"V'YICA~TOVS 0.4>00. Here the ekklesiai synkletoi are obviously extra meetings, and we learn that citizens were paid for attending an ekklesia synkletos. But in the following lines we are told that the Pnyx was locked with a key kept by the epistates; that higher rates were paid if important matters were debated; and that first-comers were paid twice, first when they arrived before others and again, with all the others, when they left the ekklesia after the session. This account does not inspire confidence but may well have inspired the scholiasts. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 39 are numerous parallels, e.g. the lexicographers' attempt to explain what a lexiarchikon grammateion was. 12 Having discussed the evidence that supports the traditional defini­ tion of ekklesia synkletos, Harris proceeds to the negative part of his argument. My definition was based on a number of passages which he now submits to a penetrating scrutiny, arguing that my interpretation of each is wrong or at best not cogent. The passages are Oem. 19.154, Aeschin. 2.61, Arist. Ath.Pol. 43.3-6, Aeschin. 2.72, IG IP 212.57ff, some sources relating to the number of ekklesiai held in Elaphebolion 346, and finally the Hellenistic decrees in which the term ekklesia syn­ kletos is actually attested. On one count I plead guilty. I misinterpreted Aeschin. 2.61, 7rpOV­ aLpwv TaS EKKArJC1·la~. The correct interpretation was pointed out to me by David Lewis,13 and is now stated independently by Harris (368). I add that in my latest treatment of the problem, published in 1984, I omitted Aeschin. 2.61 from the account; as to the other sources I am still inclined to uphold my original interpretation. (1) Oem. 19.154. Referring to the period after 25 Elaph. 346 Demos- th t ' Il' , , 'I. ' , "''''''1. ' Il ' Il' , enes sta es: £7rHu7J yap £KKI\7JULa fJ-£V OVK£T TJV V7rOI\OL7rO~ OVU£fJ-La uLa TO 7rpOKaTaK£xpr;u8aL ••. ypaw "'~LUfJ-a {3ovA£vwv, T~V (3oVA~v 7rOL~UaVTOS TOt) a~IJ.OV Kvplav • .•. My interpretation of this passage was, and re­ mains, that Demosthenes' emphatic expression must comprise both regular and extraordinary meetings (AE 36)-which Harris does not deny, but he believes that Demosthenes attempts to take in his audi­ ence and that "the possibility of summoning an extra meeting of the assembly ... is cunningly passed over in silence" (367). I agree with Harris that Demosthenes often tries to mislead his audience, and I am willing to accept his interpretation of the passage if he can demon­ strate from other sources that an ekklesia synkletos was an extra meet­ ing. As the passage stands, Oem. 19.154 points in my favour and has to be explained away in order to uphold the traditional interpretation of ekklesia synkletos. (2) In the Ath.Pol., extra meetings are mentioned neither at 43.3-6 (the detailed description ofthe four meetings held in each prytany) nor at 62.2 (briefly listing the rates for ecclesiastic pay).14 The second 12 Photius and Suda s. V.; cf D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica (Princeton 1986) 35 with n.130. 13 "M. H. Hansen on the Athenian Ecclesia," unpublished paper read in September 1984 at the Norman Baynes Annual Meeting of UK Ancient Historians (cf AV 29 with n.l 05). 14 Harris (374 n.33) finds it unlikely that ekklesiastikon was paid at ekklesiai synkle­ toi. But if I am right in maintaining that an ekklesia kyria could be held as an ekkle- HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 40 HOW OffEN DID THE EKKLESIA MEET? passage is of little consequence for our problem; the first, on the other hand, carries some weight. Harris (368f) and I (AE 203f) agree that argumenta e silentio based on the Ath.Pol. are of no value if other sources point to the existence of institutions or procedures that Ari­ stotle omits from his account. But again my point is that there is no reliable source indicating that an ekklesia synkletos was an extra meet­ ing. Therefore, until new evidence points the other way, I am inclined to accept the information given by Aristotle as it stands: the Athenians held four ekklesiai in a prytany, neither more nor less. How they were summoned (as ordinary ekklesiai or as ekklesiai synkletoi) is another matter passed over in silence by Aristotle. (3) In his speech on the embassy (2.72) Aeschines tells the jurors that, because of their fear and the general confusion, the Athenians hd '\. ' '\. h' \.' " a to convene more £l(KI\1}CTLaL CTV)'KI\1}TOL t an £l(KI\1}CTLaL T€Ta),fJ-€VaL £I( TWV VOfJ-wv. In my first article I pointed out that the reference must be to the spring of 346, in particular to prytany VIII running from early Elaphebolion to mid-Mounichion,15 This is accepted by Harris (371, 373). Again, we both believe that Aeschines is probably telling the truth and that this piece of information is to be taken seriously and literally. We also agree, essentially, that (KKA1}CT{aL T€Ta),fJ-tvaL (/( TWV vOfJ-wv-i.e., arranged for by law-must be 'regular' or 'ordinary' meet­ ings. 16 But on the meaning of ekklesia synkletos our roads part. On my interpretation Aeschines' statement implies that three out of four ek­ klesiai held in prytany VIII were synkletoi, i.e. summoned in a special way and not just held as ordinary meetings (AE 570. Harris, by con­ trast, takes the passage to mean that "things were so bad in early 346 that, in addition to the four ordinary meetings, at least five (/(KA1}CT{aL CTV)'/(A1}TOL were called every prytany for purposes of discussing urgent business" (371). Now, according to Harris, Aeschines (in 2 and 3) and Demosthenes (in 18 and 19) discuss only four meetings held in prytany sia synkletos, (cf 46 infra) there can be little doubt that the Athenians were paid the usual rate, i.e., in the age of Aristotle, nine obols for an ekklesia kyria synkletos and one drachma for other ekklesiai synkletoi. 15 AE 44-46, 64. We must keep in mind, however, that the period described by Aeschines may cover not only prytany VIII, but also prytany VII; cf Harris 371. 16 Harris 370. His distinction between (1(I(A7Jula, TfTayp.fva, and 7rpoyf:ypap.p.fva, misrepresents my ideas: on my interpretation, Aeschines' phrase t/C/C).:'1crta& Tf:Tayp.Jva& (I( TWV vop.wv is synonymous with (1(I(A7Ju{a (I( TOV vop.ov (Hesperia Suppl. 17 [1978] 4 lines 86-88; cf AE 63) and is an antonym of t/c/cA7Jcrta /CaTa ",~cp&crp.a (sources listed and discussed at AE 40, 49, 68, 76, 81). Since I take an tIC/CA7Juta ICaTa ",~cp&up.a to be an EIC/cA7Jcrla UVYICA7JTOS, I have no difficulty in explaining Aeschines' use of the op­ posed terms EICICA7Jcrla uVYICAf/TOS versus EICICA7Jcrta Tf:Tayp.fV7J EIC TWV vop.wv. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 41 VIII, i.e. the assemblies held on Elaph. 16, 18, 19, and 25.17 Of these assemblies the meeting held on Elaph. 16 in the precinct of Dionysus after the Dionysia was undoubtedly an ordinary meeting. And so were probably, according to Harris, the meetings convened on Elaph. 18 and 19.18 We have no information about the meeting held on Elaph. 25. Thus we have evidence of three, perhaps four, ordinary meetings as against one ekklesia synkletos, or none at all. Harris proceeds, "We cannot rule out the possibility that Aeschines and Demosthenes did not report all meetings of Assembly which took place during prytany viii of the archonship of Themistokles. After all, they were only inter­ ested in discussing the Peace of Philo crates and may well have left out of their speeches any references to other meetings of the Assemby which met during prytany VIII simply because these meetings did not discuss business which was relevant to this treaty" (373). True enough. It is unlikely, but not inconceivable, that an ekklesia was held between Elaph. 19 and 25 in which the envoys were (re-)elected. 19 And it is just possible that yet another ekklesia was held that has left no trace in our sources (ef AE 49, 58). But Harris asks us to believe that no less than five meetings are passed over in silence in all four speeches delivered by Aeschines and Demosthenes in 343 and 330. Moreover, he asks us to believe that at least four of these unknown meetings were ekklesiai synkletoi, i.e., according to his view, extra emergency meetings. This is simply impossible. If Harris is right about ekklesiai synkletoi being extra meetings, held in addition to the four ordinary meetings, the inference must be that, at 2.72, Aeschines is lying about the number of ekklesiai synkletoi held in prytany VIII during Elaph. 347/6. (4) If, on the other hand, Aeschines at 2.72 is right that, in connec­ tion with the peace negotiations, the Athenians convened more ekkle­ siai synkletoi than ordinary meetings, it follows that most of the ses­ sions described by Aeschines and Demosthenes must have been ekkle­ siai synkletoi. Now, the ekklesia held after the Dionysia, on Elaph. 16, was probably an ordinary meeting. Accordingly, at least one and prob­ ably all of the ekklesiai held on Elaph. 8, 18, and 19 must have been ek­ klesiai synkletoi. These meetings, however, were not summoned at 17 On the meeting of Elaph. 8 see 44 infra. The evidence for the meetings held on Elaph. 16 (?), 18, 19, and 25 is listed and discussed at AE 47f and 70f. 18 These two were not summoned at short notice, but before the Dionysia in accor­ dance with the decree proposed and carried by Demosthenes (Aeschin. 2.61; cf AE 40). Harris (371 and esp. 375) rejects my view that ekklesiai summoned by decree of the demos and boule were ekklesiai synkletoi. Thus, according to Harris, the sessions held on Elaph. 18 and 19 were ordinary ekklesiai, not ekklesiai synkletoi. 19 AE 52, 57, and esp. the addendum at 68, where the problem is discussed in the light of what we know from other sources about the appointment of envoys. HANSEN, MOGENS HERMAN, How Often Did the Athenian "Ekklesia Meet?"A Reply , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 (1987:Spring) p.35 42 HOW OFfEN DID THE EKKLESIA MEET? short notice but many days in advance in accordance with decrees proposed and carried by Demosthenes. The inference is that an ekkle­ sia synkletos was not only a session called overnight; it could also be a session summoned by decree, as against a session summoned by the prytaneis on their own initiative. Furthermore, we must not forget that of the five unquestionable examples of ekklesiai synkletoi, all attested in Hellenistic decrees, three were convened uTpaTrrywv 7rapay­ YELAaVTooV (IG II 2 911, SEG 24.134, l.De/os 1507.390, while the other two were summoned lCaTa TO ",~cptuJJ.a a 0 a~'va ~l7r~V (IG IP 838, 945). This is a strong indication that an ekklesia synkletos could be called in two different ways, and that one way was to pass a decree for this purpose. (5) Now, the ekklesia held on Elaph. 18 is not only described in Aeschin. 1-3 and in Oem. 18-19; it is also referred to in a decree honouring the Bosporan princes, IG IP 212.53-57: 7r~P't. a~ TWV XP7I- I ~ [' "" ] \.[] 1 ~ \ ~ A 1 LuILa l. lTas. 'l'H