"Demos, Ecclesia" and "Dicasterion" in Classical Athens Hansen, Mogens Herman Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 2; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 127 Demos, Ecclesia and Dicasterion in Classical Athens Mogens Herman Hansen I T HE PURPOSE of this paper is to challenge a widely held opinion about the relationship between the ecclesia and the dicasterion in classical Athens. The traditional view, which is endorsed by e.g. G. Glotz, A. W. Gomme, V. Ehrenberg, E. Meyer, E. Will, P. J. Rhodes and M. 1. Finley,l can be summed up in the following five statements: (1) In Athens sovereignty belonged to the demos. (2) The demos exercized its powers directly in the ecclesia. (3) So the ecclesia was the sovereign body of government in classical Athens. (4) The sovereignty of the ecclesia, however, was in practice considerably limited by the dicasterion. Most of the judicial power was invested in the people's court, and a decree passed by the ecclesia could be chal­ lenged through a 'YparP~ 1Tapav6JLwv and rescinded by a dicasterion. (5) The theory of the sovereignty of the ecclesia, however, is not im­ paired by this apparent separation of powers between the ecclesia and the dicasterion, since the demos was identical not only with the ecclesia but also with the dicasterion. The people's court was in fact the demos sitting in judgement. The inference to be made from (5) ought to be that sovereignty rested with the demos and was embodied both in the ecclesia and in the dicasterion. But the conclusion usually drawn is that since the dicasterion was manned by the demos and since the demos was identical with the ecclesia, there is no opposition between the sovereignty of the assembly and the judicial powers exercized by the people's court. The 1 G. Glotz, The Greek City (London 1929) 162, 166,250. A. W. Gomme, "The Working of the Athenian Democracy" in More Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford 1962) 188. V. Ehrenberg, The Greek State (Oxford 1960) 52-53, 57-58. E. Meyer. Einfuhrung in die antike Staatskunde (Darmstadt 1968) 88,96. E. Will, Le monde grec et l' orient, Peuples et civilisa­ tions 11.1 (Paris 1972) 456-58. P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 198. M.1. Finley, Drnwcracy Ancient and Modern (London 1973) 18,26-27. The identification of the demos both with the ecclesia and with the dicasterion is made also by Ph. Gauthier in Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xenophon (Paris 1976) 24 and 29-30. 127 128 DEMOS, ECCLESIA AND DICASTERION dicasterion is either identified with the ecclesia or brushed away as a committee of the ecclesia with an authority held only by delegation from the demos = the ecclesia. This theory of the relationship between the assembly and the people's court is based on the assumption that the demos was em­ bodied both in the ecclesia and in the dicasterion, but in my opinion this assumption is not only unfounded but even contradicted by the evidence. An inspection of all the sources seems rather to substantiate the following four statements: (1) The demos is frequently identified with the ecclesia. (2) The demos is never identified with the dicasterion. (3) The demos (= the ecclesia) is often opposed to the dicasterion. (4) Like the Council of Five Hundred the dicasterion is a democratic body of government which cannot, however, be identified with the demos. My review of the sources is divided into two parts, of which the first comprises the inscriptions and the speeches and the second the poets, the philosophers and the historians. Whereas the inscriptions and the speeches held in the ecclesia or before the dicasterion provide us with direct information about the constitutional meaning and use of the word demos, the remaining literary evidence at most reflects or discusses this usage, and for this reason the speeches must be grouped with the epigraphical evidence and separated from the secondary evidence which can be discussed under one heading. II In the decrees preserved on stone it is abundantly attested that demos when referring to a body of government invariably denotes the ecclesia and never the dicasterion. It is sufficient to mention that a deci­ sion made by the assembly is introduced with the enactment-formula l8og€ -rqJ 8~f.Lcp or l8og€ -rfi fJOVAjj Ka~ -rqJ 8~f.Lcp2 and that one of the honours frequently bestowed on foreigners is 7Tp6co8oc 7Tp6C -r~v f3ovA~v Ka~ -r6V 8fjf.LoV (= the ecclesia).3 Only one inscription has been adduced in support of the identification of the demos with the dicas­ terion as well as with the ecclesia, viZ. IG 12 114.37: av€v -ro 8~f.L0 -ro }10€valov 7TA€]OVOV-roc f.L~ Iva, Oav[a]-ro[v, which is interpreted as follows by Rhodes:' the right to pass the death sentence is reserved for the I Rhodes, op.cit. (supra n.l) 64fr. • Rhodes, op.cit. (supra n.l) 43. , op.cit. (supra n.l) 169 n.5, 197-200. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 129 entire demos. Since we know that the Heliaia was empowered to inflict capital punishment, the conclusion is that the Heliaia is representative of the entire demos. This conclusion is weakened, however, by the fact that in the fifth and the fourth centuries the council of the Areopagus, which in no circumstances can be identified with the demos, passed innuxnerable sentences of death. Since IG 12 114 deals with the powers of the Council of Five Hundred, the correct interpretation is probably that the council must not pass any sentence of death without the approval of the people. In that case the 8f7!-'oc 1TA7JOVWV only denotes the assembly, not the assembly and the court.1i The documents transmitted to us, however, contain only casual references to the dicasterion, and so it is impossible on the basis of the epigraphical evidence to disprove the assumption that demos may designate the dicasterion as well as the ecclesia. To elucidate the mean­ ing of the word demos we must turn to the speeches6 and examine which body of government an orator may have in mind when he refers to the demos in a speech delivered either in the assembly or before the people's court. In the preserved speeches (covering the period ca 420 to ca 320 B.C.) demos occurs some six hundred times7 and in so many different con­ texts that its range of meaning can be sufficiently determined. The word frequently denotes the whole of the people = all Athenian citizens,S whereas we have hardly any example of demos denoting the 6 M. H. Hansen, Eisangelia. The Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians (Odense 1975) 52. Idem, "How Many Athenians Attended the Eeclesia?" GRBS 17 (1976) 122; I should like to point out that the words "pace Rhodes" in nAl must not be taken to mean that Rhodes believes in plenary assemblies. We disagree only about the relationship between the ecclesia and the dicasterion, not about the types of meeting of the ecclesia. • By Ant., Andoc., Lys., Isoc., Isae., Oem., Aeschin., Hyp., Lycurg. and Din., plus genuine forensic speeches wrongly attributed to one of these orators (e.g., Apollodorus' speeches in the Corpus Demosthenicum). I exclude Andoc. 4 Against Alcibiades and Lys. 15 Against Alcibi­ ades. Andoc. 4 is probably a literary exercise written much later, and the authenticity of Lys. 15 has frequently been questioned. On the other hand I include Oem. 13 and 25. I have classified Isocrates with the orators and not with the philosophers. Of the relevant speeches 16 (On the Biga) and 18 (Against Callimachus) are genuine courtroom speeches. 7 (Areopagiti­ eus) and 8 (On the Peace) pretend to be demegoriai and 15 (Antidosis) to be delivered before the jurors (if. 15.13). 7 I do not discuss demos in the sense 'deme', and I omit a couple of passages where demos refers to the people of a state other than Athens. 8 Ant. 5.70; Andoc. 1.36,98; 2.16; 3.1, 7, 33; Lys. 13.51,91; 18.5, 11; 20.17, 25.11; 2604, 20; 31.29; Isoc. 7.63; 8.75,121,125; 10.36; 12.139, 141, 147; 15.232; 16.20,26,41,46; 18.62; Ep. 2.15; Isae. 5.38; Oem. 3.30, 15.22; 18.57, 112, 130,278; 19.8, 136,300; 20.2, 3,12,36,39,42,44. 130 DEMOS, ECCLESIA AND DICASTERION common people in opposition to the upper and middle classes.9 This meaning of demos, so prominent in philosophy (see infra p.139), is almost unattested in the speeches. When discussing constitutional matters an orator may use demos synonymously with democratia,lO and similarly, in descriptions of the civil wars in 411-403, he can speak of demos meaning Sfjp.oc <> 140'Y]vatwv, where the reference is to the (democratic) Athenian state, in opposition to e.g. Lacedaimon or Thebes.12 In about half of the six hundred instances, however, demos means l~Ec(}at, alpEtc(}at etc.15 A decree of the assembly is called 8~f.LoV ifJ~r/>tqJ,(t., 16 and in several instances a distinction is made between the demos and the bouleP It is the demos that issues orders, bestows honours, listens to reports, debates on war and peace and sometimes passes a sentence on a politician without referring the case to a dicasterion.18 Whereas demos in the sense ecclesia is abundantly attested, I have found only three passages where the word demos is applied to the dicastai manning the people's court: Aeschin. 1.141: E1T££8~ Be )1X,AAEWC Kat. IIaTp&ICAov p,€ftVYJc()e Kat, «Of.L~pOV Ka~ ET'PWV 7TOt1JTWV, WC TWV f.L~v 8tKaCTWv &:V1JK6wv 7Tat8Elac " «~~"" ~ (}" ,« J. OVTWV, VIJ.EK OE EVCX7JILOVEC TWEC 7TPOC7TotEtC E €tvat Kat V7TEP'f'PO- VOVvTEC lCTOplq. TOV 8ijILov, lv' d8ijTE OTt Ka~ ~ILE'iC Tt 7j81J ~KovcaILEV Ka~ "(} \ 'l:' ,« ~ , , ElLa 0ILEV, I\Et;;0ILEV Tt Kat 7JILEtC 7TEpt TOVTWV. Hyp. 1.29: .. . &:"wvwv ~1L'iv VCTEPOV 7TOAAWV yEyEV1JIL&wv, .. OUSE­ [7TW7TOTE ~]f.L[w]v OVTOt [KaTE]!fo1Jc!>lcCXVTO. ill' £K 7TlXVTWV lcwcav, [07TEp 1L]'ytCTOV Ka~ [&:gtom]cT6TaTov rfjc [TOU S~f.L]ov [Sta]vola[c C1Jf'E'ioV]. D· 3 19" '\ , «A , l' 'A(} ~ ~ ~l: m. . : a XP7J 1\0ytCaf'EVOVC vf'ac 7TaVTac W .t1. 1Jvatot . . . o€tt;;at A '(}' '" ~, J.(} ,~~ , \ A(} ~« , 7Tacwav PW7TOtC, OTt ov CVVotE'f' apTat TO TOV 07JlLov 7T1\7J oc TWV P7JTOpwv , ~ ~ Kat TWV CTpaT1JYWV T£Ctv. Aeschin. 1.141, however, is one of the few passages where the meaning of demos is rather J..ol or vl-'€'ic ~ 7TOAtC 21 but never with the phrase vl-'€'ic & '8fjl-'oc. This expression can be found only in speeches delivered in the assembly on the Pnyx or in letters addressed to the assembly.22 More important. however. than this argument from silence is the use of the word demos in passages where the orator makes a clear distinction or even indicates a direct opposition between the demos and the dicasterion. (a) First we have several examples of demos (= ecclesia). boule and dicasterion being juxtaposed and mentioned as three different bodies of government. O 23 97 <:, , A fl' ., • \ , • A I: ' em. . : ot07TEP KaTapaTat Kau EKacT7Jv EKKI\7JCtaV 0 K7JpVs, OVK ., 'I: 'fl ~_ \ \,.. 'I; A \ , "R '\ \ "~A " E£ TWEC ES7J7TaT1Ju7Jcav, a.I\I\ €L TtC Esa7TaTff I\EyWV 7J t-0VI\7Jv 7J o7JI-'ov 7J -r1}v ~'\tala.v. Oem. 24.9: .. . &.ua 7TPWTOV /Lf:V rijc {JOVAfjC KaTEYVWKvtac, EtTa TOV ~ , If' _, '" '''''''' _. \ , , ~ \ , 01]/LOV /LtaV 7J/LEpav Ol\7JV E7Tt TOVTOtC aVToLC aVaI\WCaVTOC, 7TPOC OE TOV- ~ ,~-,., \ '\ , ',1_-1..' 'Tf , TOtC otKaCT1JptOW oVOtV EtC Eva KaL X'I\WVC E't"I't'tC/LEVWV • •• .J. t/LoKpaT1JC 18 Andoc. 3 (391); Lys. 28 (389); Oem. 14 (354/3); Oem. 13 (353/2); Oem. 16 (353/2); Oem. 4 (352/1); Oem. 15 (351/0); Oem. 1-3 (349/8); Oem. 5 (346/5); Oem. 6 (344/3); Oem. 7 (343/2); Oem. 8 (342/1); Dem. 9 (342/1); Oem. 10 (342/1); Oem. 17 (331). 10 e.g., Oem. 13.16,24.2; Aeschin. 3.6; Din. 3.16, etc. 11 W &VSpEC Jt8"1varo, e.g. Dem. 18.1, 19.1,20.1,21.2,22.4,23.1,24.6,25.8, 26.1. ~P.ErC 0' 7Tollol e.g. Oem. 24.37, 193 •... ~pi»v 7TO.\E Sfjf'OC Kat i] POVA~ Kat Ta StKacnjpt' ECTat; D 25 20 " • ~ ,/: I R 1\ , """ em. . : €t yap TtC Vf'WV Es-ETaCat ,..OVI\ETaL Tt 7TOT ECTt TO atTtOV " ~'Q \' \\' 0 ,~~ ", \ I Kat TO 7TOtOVV TT)V pOVI\T)V CVI\I\€Y€C at, TOV OT)f'OV HC TT)V €KKI\TJnav , R I ,~ I \ ~O avapatl/€tI/, Ta otKaCTT)pta 7T1\T)pOVC at • •• D 57 56 < ~ I .,. .. ~ 'Af} A " ~'.1. ,I,. em. . : opw yap, W avoP€C L1. TJvatot, OV f'ovov TWV a7T0'f'T)'f'tca- , 'A \ , ,~ " .. \ ~ I '\ \ , \ ~ JLEVWV L1.l\tJLovnwv €f'ov KVptWT€P OVTa Ta otKacTT)pta, al\l\a KaL TTJC R \ - , ~ ~ I ~, '" f}" ,. A , ,..OVI\TJC KaL TOV oTJf'OV, OLKaLWC' KaTa yap 7Tav aL 7Tap Vf'tV €LCL KplC€LC 8LKaLbTaTaL. 133 Admittedly, all the examples are from Demosthenes, but in 23.97 he refers to the curse read out to the people in assembly, in 20.100 he paraphrases a law, and 24.50 is a verbatim quotation of a law. This docu­ ment alone is sufficient proof that the orators follow the official usage when they distinguish between the demos and the dicasterion. (b) In other passages a simple distinction is made between the dicasterion (or the dicastai) and the demos (= the ecclesia) without any mention of the boule: Andoc. 1.28: l80g€v 03v TcfJ 8'r}f'cp €v TcfJ TWV f}€CJLOOETWV 8LKacTT)plcp TOllC JL€f'V7Jf'wovc .. • 8La8LKacaL. Lys. 13.65: cvAA'r}fJ8T)V yap vJL€'iC a7TaVT€C Kat €v TcfJ 8'r}JLcp Kat €v TcfJ ~ , ,1,.' ,- I oLKaCTT)pLcp CVK0't'avTUXC aVTOV KaTEYVWTE ... D 18 250 ' ~ .., t" ~ A'" ~ , em. . : Tt 7TpOCTJK€V TJ TL oLKaLOV 'IV TOLC V7T Ef'OV 7T€7TpaYJL€Votc f} '0 'K ,1,.-'" ,C\ \ t'- ., 0 ' ,c\ EC aL TOV TTJCL't'WVT ovof'a; OVX 0 TOV 0TJf'0V Ewpa TL €f'€VOV, OVX 0 TOllC OJLWJLOKbTac 8LKaCTac; D 19 132 - , , , , .,. .. t' 'AO A ~ I , em. . : 7TWC yap OVK aLCXpov, W avop€c L1. TJvaLOL, v'IJL0Ctq. JL€V a7TaVTac Vf'a.c Kat OAOV TOV 8fjf'OV 7Ta.Ct TO'iC 7T€7TpaYJLWOLC €K TijC 'tf' ..... ,~\,~ , '\0' \t'\ , €LpTJVTJC €7TLTtJLav, •.. HC O€ TO oLKaCTTJpLOV ELCEI\ OVTac Tac V7TEP TOVTWV EvOvvac 8LKaCOVTac, OPKOV VrrEp rijc 7T6AEWC oJLwJLoK6Tac • • • TOVTOV arpE'ivaL; Dem. 59.27: .. . aVTEt7TWV l.v TcfJ 87Jf'cp rfi pOTJOElq. • • . Kal. • . . yparpEI.c • , ~ ,I,. I "" t' Q\ 0 ' ~ \' , ~ V7TO .c."TE't'avov TOVTOVL aCTpaTEtaC Kat OLapl\TJ EtC Tcp I\oycp €V Tcp t' ,.~\ " III otKaCTT)ptcp EfXI\W KaL T)TtJLWI7T). 134 DEMOS, ECCLESIA AND DICASTERION A hin 3 10 ., \" • \:' , • .L' •• , esc .. : 'llC}(VVOVTO yap o£(.La£ O£ mKacra£, E£ 'f'av7JCETa£ 0 aVTOC avTJp • . • 1TpcfnJV JLtv 1TOTE avayopEv6(.LEVOC Ev TO'C aywc£v OTt CTEc/>avoiha£ , -" , !:l , ., - ~ -.L" "" apE'"IC EVEKa Ka£ O£Ka£ocUV7]C V1T0 TOV v'I(.L0V XPVcep C'TE'f'avep, 0 OE ., " ,., "I: ' - '" '\ - " aVTOC «V7Jp (.L£KpOV E1T£CXWV ESE£C£V EK TOV O£Kac'"Ip£OV KI\01l7JC EVEKa , '(J , • .I.. \ , " , , Y '.1. -.1.._ .1..' • !:l \ Tac EV vvac W'f'I\7JKWC' WCTE 7JvayKa~oVTo '"IV 'f'7J'f'VV 'f'EpE£V O£ O£KaCTa£ ou 1TEP' TOV 1Tap6VTOC a8UC'r]p.aTOC. aM' tmEP rijc alcxWrJc TOV 8~(.Lov. H 3 24 .,' "" .,~. - ~ , , • - ,-yp. . : .. . wc EyW o£c 7Ju'l EV Tep U'I(.Lep EVaVT£OV V(.LWV Ka, TWV MAWV )1(J7Jvalwv 1TPOC TOVC ijKoVTac 1Tap' aVrijc (Olympias) €~AEyga ••• L 1 54 "!:l " ,\ - '" , !:l , ycurg. . : a o7J KaTEyvwcTa£ JLEV 1Tapa Tep o£Ka£oTaTep CVVEOP'ep (the Areopagus). KaTE~c/>£cTa£ 8' vc/>' v(.Lwv TWV 8£Ka'E£v Aax6VTwv. • \ A "" 'A "', - , .!!t:." , O(.LOl\oyE£Ta£ OE 1Tapa Tep 07J(.Lep '"IC (.LEy£C'"IC ~£a E£va£ T£(.Lwp£aC. , • A' '.1_.1.. A (J TOVTO£C V(.LE£C EVaVT£a 'f"I'f'£E£C E; O · 1 40 • A ~ 'A " 'A(J A.!! I: ' fJ \ , • , ffi. . : EKE£VO£'ICav EKE£VO£ W n 7Jva£o£ ~£O£ CV(.L OVI\O£ lCa£7JYE(.LoVEC f.- , ... ~ V(.LWV Ka£ TOV u'I(.L0V • ••• Din. 1.64: p.ap-n>pop.a£ • •• 0.,.£ TOV &1f.LOV 1Tapa8E8wK6TOC VJL'V T£JLW- , (J \ ~\.L ' - ,- !!:l p7]cac a£ TOV E"'7J'f'oTa T£ TWV. • . KaTa '"IC 1TaTpwoc ••• O · 1 84' C "',. ,. , fI A -., ... '" , ffi. . : E1TE£u'l OE E£C Tac V(.LETEpac 7JKE£ XE£pac. TWV V1TEP TOV 07J(.LOV CVVE£AEY(.LtvWV Ka, TWV o(.Lw(.LoK6TWV 1TEtcEc(Ja£ TO'C V6(.L0£C Ka, TO'C TOV &1f.LOV ifnJc/>lcp.ac£, Tt 1TO£~CETE; Din. 1.104: ... /nc(J' & (.LEv 1TpOE£p7]Kc1c Ev Tip 8~JLep TOV 'aVTOV TPWOV , , , , " , , \ , '" AI: \ , Ka£ TTJV a1Tovo£av •• • O(.LWC OV TETOI\(.L7JKE TOVTO£C OE£sa£ TO 1TPOCW1TOV. 105 • - , "'A(J A ,'\ \ A - \ '.I.. ,-• • • : opaT W n 7Jva£o£, T£ (.LEI\I\ETE 1TO£E£V. 1TapE"'7J'f'aTE 1Tapa TOV ~ ,- 106' • '-Iv!. ' - • \ \ (J' UlI(.L0V TO 1Tpay(.La,. . • : 1TOTEP •.• a'f"lcETE TOV 1TPWTOV E£CEI\7JI\V o-ra , • - ,,"', [ '] ,- "', \ - fJ \ - - 'I: 1TpOC v(.Lac, Ka£ Ta O£Ka£a Ta 1Tapa Tep o7J(.Lep Ka£ T'l1 OVI\'ll T'l1 E5 'A' , '" 'I: ,.,. \ A -~\ \., '(J , -(J' npE£oV 1Tayov OOSaVT E£va£ Ka£ TO£C Ul\l\O£C a1Tac£V av pW1TO£C. Tav V(.LE'C ot KQP£O£ 1T&VTWV AQCETE; Din. 2.20: .. . Toth-OV KaTaXE£poTo~cac & 8ijf.LOC 1Tapa8l8wKEV V(.L'V T£JLW~caclJa£, ••• O · 3 14 "(J" (J '.I.. ,. ~, '!:l ffi. . : •.. 0 O£ EO£ 'f'avEpOVC V(.L£V 1To£7JcaVTEC 1TapEaocav T£(.LW- ~caclJa£, 'opaK6TEc TOV 8fj(.Lov cX1TavTa Ka~yopov TOth-OV YEYEV7J(.LEVOV Ka, 1TPOKEXE£p£K6Ta 1TPWTOV TWV MAWV J1T' TO -rT]V T£(.LWplav Ev V(.L'V 80tiva£. (c) Most significant are five instances where the orator emphasizes a direct opposition between the demos and the dicasteric)n: Oem. 19.297: ;T£ TOtVVV 1TOAAO' 1Tap' V(.L'v J1T' Ka£pwv YEY6vac£v lcXUpot. V __ \\' "(J 'A .1..- A.!..L __ ' fI , .Cl.UI\I\£CTpaTOC, av £C np£CTo'f'WV, ,u£"'f'U'Y'OC, TOVTWV ETEpO£ 1TpOTEpOV. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN &AAa 7TOU TOth-WV ElCaCTOC ~7TPWTEVEV; ~ Tip O,]JLq>' ~ O~ TO ic o'lCa­ c'"IplOtC OVOElc TTW JLEXpt TijC T,]JLEPOV ~p.EpaC VJLWV OVO~ TWV VOJLWV ov8~ TWV OPKWV KPEtTTWV yEyOVEV. D 24 55 ,~." .f. \" , \'" \ em. . : 0 0 Eypa'f'EV, Kat E t TWt 7TpOCTETtfL'T}Tat KaTa VOfLOV 'T} KaTa .f. '.J.. \ SU:' 'y"" \" \ I:' 'f''T}'f',cJLa, TOV VlfP.OV TOVTq> xp'T}p.aTt,:>EW, 07TWC a P.EV EyvW TO otlCa- C~PLOV AVO~CE'Ta;L> ••• Dem. 24.80: ~OvJLEicO' &?T<~ TOU OtlCac'"Iplov Ka~ TijC KaTayvwcEwc or I:' II:' • \ \ I:'A '\' \'1:' , \, '1:' otE7T7]O'T}CEV' E7Tt TOV o'T}JLov, EKICI\E7TTWV TOV 'T}otlC'T}lCoTa lCat T'T}V 7Tapaoocw aVTOU T~V TOtC EVOElCa. Dem. 59.91: Ka~ i]S'T} Ttd TOV S7JJLOV SOVTOC T~V SwpEcfv, Aoycp Ega- 0 ' f'..... , , , J...... , \ 7Ta'"l EVTOC V7TO TWV atTOVVTWV, 7TapavoJLwv ypa'f''T}c YEVOP.EV7JC lCat • \8' " I:' I 'l; \ 0 A '{J' n.J.. ' \ £tCEI\ OVC'T}C EtC TO otKaCT'T}pwv, EsEI\EYX 'T}vat CVVE 'T} TOV E"''T}'f'oTa '"IV SWPEflV fL~ agwv Elvat aVTijc, Ka1,&rpElAETO TO StlCaCT7JPWv' •• . llEtOoAav TE TOV eETTaAov lCa~ 147TOAAwvlS'T}v TOV 'OAvvOtov 7ToAlTac thrO TOV 07JJLov , '.J.. 1\ , I:' , YEVOJLEVOVC a'f'EtI\ETO TO otKac'"Ipwv' Din. 3.15-6: Ka~ 0 JL~v SijfLoC a7Tac . .. &7TEXEtpoTOV7JCEV aVTov &7T0 Tijc A '.J.. ' R • \ 1 '~I:'" A I:' " A , TWV E'f''T}/''WV E7TtJLEI\EtaC- VfLE tC 0 Ot T'T}C o'T}p.oICpaTtac Kat TWV vOfLwv .J.. '\ "., \. \ A ,\ A 1:" 1:" 'f'Vl\aKEC, OVC 'T} TVX'T} Kat 0 ICI\'T}pOC V7TEp TOV O'T}fLOV otICaCOVTac • .. E7TETPEI/JEV, rpdCECOE TOU TotauTa Ota7TE7TpaYfLEvov, ... 135 We have other sources indicating an opposition between the assembly and the court. In connection with the graphe paranomon, for example, we often hear that a decision made by the assembly is rescinded by the court.23 But the passages quoted above are particu­ larly important because a distinction is made not between the ecclesia and the dicasterion but between the demos and the dieasterion. In my opinion these passages finally disprove the assumption that the dieasterion can be considered a body of government identical with the demos. On the contrary, the sources represent the dicastai as only a fraction of the demos acting on behalf of the demos. But this investigation cannot be limited to an examination of the word demos. In the forensic speeches the jurors are frequently styled J, /XV8PEC 1487Jvcxtot, which is the proper form of address to the people in assembly Cef n.2l); and an orator often applies a pronoun or a verb in the second person plural in addresses to the jurors even when he refers to a decision actually made by the ecclesia. In the speech Against 23 M. H. Hansen, The Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Public Action against Unconstitutional Proposals (Odense 1974) 49 and Catalogue nos. 1,4, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 29, 35, 38. 136 DEMOS, ECCLESIA AND DICASTERION Aristocrates, for example, Demosthenes (23.167) tells the jurors that, some years earlier, they were so angry with the general Cephisodotus ., , , ", ,'\ , ~" r WCT CX7T€X£tPOTOV7JCCXT€ p.€V TOV crpcxTrryov, 7T€VT€ TCXI\CXVTOtC 0 €~TJp.t- WCCXT€, TP€i.C Si p.6vcxt t/rYic/>Ot S'-r]veYKCXV TO p..q BCXV&TOV np.fjccx,. Strictly speaking the dicasterion was responsible only for the sentence (passed by psephophoria) whereas the deposition (by apocheirotonia) was a deci­ sion made by the assembly.24 Is this usage not an indication that the Athenians must have regarded a session of the dicasterion as a meeting of the demos like a session of the ecclesia? Certainly not; for this line of argument would by necessity lead to the identification of the demos not only with the dicasterion but also with the boule. Of the preserved speeches most are written for delivery either in the assembly or in the court, but we have a few examples of speeches held before the Council of Five Hundred, e.g. the fifty-first oration in the Corpus Demosthenicum. In this speech the councillors are addressed not only with the phrase JJ {3oVA-r] but also with the phrase JJ Il.vSp€C )1BTJvcxi.o, (Oem. 51.3, 8, 12,22), and the speaker uses the second person plural even when he refers to a psephisma actually passed by the assembly.25 But, to the best of my knowledge, no historian has ventured, on the basis of this evidence, to suggest that it would be misapplied formalism to emphasize that the demos ( = the ecclesia) and the boule were differ­ ent bodies of government. On the contrary Rhodes has recently published an excellent monograph in which he distinguishes between the boule and the ecclesia and discusses to what extent the boule may have controlled the demos.26 In conclusion, the boule and the dicasterion were certainly demo­ cratic institutions, and many councillors and dicasts must have attended the meetings of the assembly as well as the sessions of the councilor the court. There was an enormous overlap in personnel. But nevertheless the ecclesia, the boule and the dicasterion were three different agencies, and the sources demonstrate that only the ecclesia was regarded as the demos. U Cf Oem. 19.19, 21.1S3, SO.4, etc. 16 viiv 8~ TtfJ '1TpWTC{J '1TapacKwacavn T~V TpnJP"'1 T';V Ta,.,.lav '1TpOdTa~£v & 8fj,.,.oc 8ouva, (Oem. S1.1). I/r#IC,.,.a yap v,.,.wIJ '1To'TJca,.,./IJwIJ, ••• Kat TaUTa KVpWCaIJTWIJ, EYW I-'~IJ '1T£plWPl-'lCa Kat CTf,paIJOIJ SUX TaVTa '1Tap' v,.,.wIJ EAa/JoIJ (Oem. S1.4). Cf Lys. 16, a speech delivered before the boule (cL pov).~, 1 et passim), in which the councillors are addressed as if they had concluded the alliance with Boiotia in 395, JT€ ~IJ cv,.,.,.,.axlaIJ E'1TonJcac8€ '1Tpac BOlWTOVc (Lys. 16.13); IG IJlI4= Tod 101. Cf. furthermore Lys. 16.6,20-21; 24.22, 31.29 . • 41 op.at. (supra n.l) 213-23, esp. 215 and 223. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 137 III In a short monograph about the graphe paranomon published in 1974 I stated this view briefly without any detailed discussion of the sources;27 and my reviewer in theJHS96 (1976), Mr B. Caven, replied with the folloWing comment: " ... he confuses rather than elucidates the argument ... by suggesting that, since the Heliaea was not identical with the Ecclesia-which is regularly styled Sfjp.oc atTLOC YEV0I-'EVOC EcppoV1Ji-'CXTlc81] .•• 15-19: E1TEi .EoAwv yE lOLICE T7JV avaYKaLOTCxT1JV a1ToS,86vaL Tep S~I-'ep Swap.w, TO Td:C apXd:C a{pE'ic(}a£ Ka~ EV(}WEW, p.T}S~ Yd:P TOVrOV KtJp£OC clJV o Sfjp.oc SOVAOC &v EtT} Kat 1ToMp.LOC, Td:C S' apXd:C EK TWV YVWPLP.WV , ..... ,. I I , Kat TWV EV1TOpWV ICaTECTTjCE 1Tacac, • •• In 2-3 demos means 'democracy' in opposition to oligarchy; in the other four instances the meaning is 'the common people' in opposition to the wealthy class (0' YVWpLJLOL Kat 0' EtmOpOL in lines 18-19). But there is no example of demos meaning 'the Athenian people' and denoting the dicasterion. Caven seems not to have noticed that demos (like the English word 'people') has more than one meaning. It may connote either 'the whole of the people' or 'the common people', and it may denote either a body of government (viZ" the ecclesia) or a class (viZ., 0' a7TopoL in opposition to 0' dJ7TOpOt). The orators (who favour the democratic constitution) tend to identify the demos with the whole MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 139 of the people embodied in the ecclesia, whereas the philosophers (who criticize democracy as mob rule) argue that both the ecclesia and the dicasterion are dominated by the demos = the poor, and in that sense it is of course perfectly possible to speak of the demos in the dicasterion or to say that the demos dominates the dicasterion. But this usage is markedly different from the phrase ;Sot£ 'T'~ S~J.L4J in the enactment­ formula of the decrees or the phrase iv 'T'/jJ S~f.LCfJ AJY€LV frequently found in the speeches. If we examine the use of demos in Plato, Aristotle (Pol. and Ath.Pol.) and in Xenophon's philosophical writings (including the Ps.Xen. Ath. PoL), we learn that demos often denotes the ecclesia,29 and, in conform­ ity with the usage found in the documents and in the speeches, we have several examples of demos = ecclesia being opposed to the di­ casterion. plat. Ep. 8, 356n: 710AEf.LOV S~ Kat Elp~V17C apxovTac VOf.Lo~tJAaKac 710£+ 8 ' 8' I " I ~ '{3 \-cac at apt f.LOV TptaKoVTa Ka£ 71EVTE f.LETa TE V11f.L0V KaL OVA1JC. SLKacT~pta S€ aAAa f.L€V aAAwv. . . Arist. Pol. 1282a34-37: ov yap 0 SLKacr1]c ovS' 0 {3ovAEVT1]C ovS' 0 '\ '" , I '\\' ,~ , , f {3 \' 'f EKKATJetacTTJc apxwv ECTLV, al\l\a TO OLKaCTTJpLOV KaL TJ OVATJ KaL 0 Mif.LOC· TWV S~ PTJ8EVTWV €KaCTOC f.LoptOV ECTt TOtJTWV (AEyw S~ [f.LoptOv] '{3 \ , '" \ , "~ ') TOV OVAEVTTJV KaL TOV EKKATJCtaCTTJV KaL TOV OLKaCTTJV • Arist. Ath.Pol. 25.2: €71ELTa TfjC {30VAfjC .. . 71EPLEtAETO Ta E71t8ETa (Ephialtes) .. . KaL Ta JLEV TotC 7TEVTaKocloLc Ta SE Tip S~JL

p,aA£c'Ta cPanv lcxvlC£vat 'TO 1TATjOoc, ~ Elc 'TO StlCac~ptov ErPECtC" ICVPWC ya.p wv 0 8ijp,oc rijc ifn1rP0v ICVptOC ylYVE'Tat rijc 1ToAt'TElac. Arist. Ath.Pol. 41.2: amfJI'Twv ya.p av-roc alhov 1TE1TOlTJIC€V 0 STill-oc , \ ' ~ A ,1...1.. ' \ ~ ".,. t ICVPWV, lCat 1Tav'Ta ototKEL'Tat 'f'TJ'f'tcp,acw lCat otlCaC'TTJptOLC, €V OtC 0 ~A " t A \ \ t A f3 \ _ , ,\ ~A 0TJp,0C EC'TLV 0 ICpa'TWv. lCat yap at TTJC OVI\TJC ICP£CEtC E£C 'TOV 0TJp,0V EATJAVOacw.31 To conclude from these passages that the Athenians identified demos both with ecclesia and with dicasterion would in my opinion be a misinterpretation of the sources. First, the philosophers object to democracy by maintaining that the democratic institutions are dominated by the demos=ol a1TopoL, but when they speak of the demos as an institution they have invariably the ecclesia in mind. Second, these passages illustrate only the philosophers' criticism of democracy and cannot be adduced as evidence for the democrats' own view of their institutions, which is reflected in the documents and in the speeches. (c) Since the historians take more interest in politics than in con­ stitutional matters, passages elucidating the meaning of demos are not frequent, but so far as the evidence goes the conclusions stated above are supported by Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon's historical writings. When demos denotes an institution, the reference is always to the ecclesia,32 and we have at least three instances of demos being opposed to dicasterion, one in Herodotus' account of the trial of Miltiades in 493, one in Thucydides' portrait of Antiphon and one in Xenophon's description of the trial of the generals in 406. 81 £lc TaJ' 8ijp.oJ' means 'to the ecclesia', if. IG II 114 and supra p.129. 82 Hdt. 1.59.4-5.5.97.1.6.136.1,7.142.1,9.5.1; Thuc. 4.46.2; 4.118.11, 14; 5.45.1-4; 6.60.1, 4; 8.53.1; 8.54.1. 3; 8.66.1. 8.67.1. 8.68.1; Xen. Hell. 1.7.3.4. 11. 12. 26. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 141 • .J.. ' ~ , " ,., 'AO 1 • ~ 1 0 a7TO",vywv O€ Kat TOVTOVC CTpaTTJYoc OVTWC L:l TJvatwv a7T€O€X TJ, to' t, -~ atp€ fEtC V7TO TOV u'IJLov. Thuc. 8.68.1: )lvTtq,WV ~v • •• TOVC ••• aywvt'oJLtvovc Kat Jv StKaCTTJplc.p , '~ \ A ..' '" f3 \ 1 , "', Kat €V v'IJLlfJ 7TI\HeTa €£C aV'T}p, ocne CVJL oVI\€VemTO n, uvvaJL€VOC dJq,€A€'iV. Xen. Hell. 1.7.12: TOV O€ KaMig€vov 7TpOC€KaAecavTo 7Tap&'voJLa cf>&.- .J.. ' E' '\' tn' , -~\ \ CKOVT€C cvyy€ypa",fEVat VPV7TTOI\€JLOC T€ ° fEtCtaVaKTOC Kat aJ\I\O£ , - "" '" , " -" , "" \ -e 'R' ~ , 1-T£V€C. TOV O€ 0TJJLOV €V£O£ TaVTa €1T'[JVOVV, TO U€ 7TI\TJ oc €/,-,oa O€LVOV €LVa£ ., , , ,~ - , " " f3 1\ €£ JLTJ TtC €ac€£ TOV 0TJI-WV 7TpaTT€LV 0 (XV oVI\TJTat. The usage in Herodotus and Thucydides needs no further comment, but the passage in Xenophon is crucial: when Euryptolemus and others venture to lodge a fJ7Twj-Locla against Callixenus' 7Tpo{301fA€vj-La, their opponents counter with the argument that it would be out­ rageous to prevent the demos from doing whatever they wished. So an appeal from the ecclesia to the dicasterion is regarded as an attack on the sovereignty of the demos. The argument does not make sense if we assume that the dicasterion was the demos sitting in judgement. We must conclude that the Athenians identified the demos meaning 'the Athenian people' with the ecclesia but not with the dicasterion. IV So far I have discussed the relationship between the ecclesia and the dicasterion in the period ca 42Q-ca 320, for which we possess direct evidence. But the dicasterion was introduced by Solon, and I will round off the argument with an account of demos, ecclesia and dicasterion from the beginning of the sixth to the end of the fifth century. It is commonly argued, most recently by Rhodes,33 that the Solonian Heliaia was identical with the ecclesia and that a session of this court of appeal was a meeting of the entire people acting as jurors. The Heliaia (= the ecclesia) was divided into dicasteria only after Ephialtes' reform, and, according to Rhodes, Cleinias' tribute decree of 447 (1) contains the last (restored) occurrence of the word Heliaia in its original sense. In my Eisangelia34 I objected to this reconstruction by referring to Arist. Pol. 1274a: KVptOV 7To£~cavTa (Solon) TO 8£KaeT~p£Ov 7T(XVTWV, 88 op.dt. (supra n.l) 169 n.5, 197-200. 84 op.dt. (supra n.5) 52. 142 DEMOS, ECCLESIA AND DICASTERION KA"fJPWTOV ~v (4-5). If the jurors introduced by Solon were chosen by lot, the existence of separate dicasteria can be traced back to the beginning of the sixth century. Rhodes, however, in an article to be published in]HS 99 (1979),35 assumes that this passage in the Politics, in which Aristotle paraphrases and rejects the view of some unnamed authorities, is evidence only of the fourth-century controversy about Solon, whereas we have more reliable evidence of Solon's reforms in the Ath.Pol., which I suspect of being anachronistic. According to Rhodes it is most unlikely that there was a plurality of jury courts as early as the time of Solon, and he suggests that the information in the Politics about Ta 8tKaCT~pux in the plural and about jurors chosen by lot is unreliable and must be rejected as proof "that the Solonian court of appeal was manned by sworn jurors chosen by lot."36 Rhodes may be right in his assumption that Pol. 1274a reflects the fourth-century debate of the patrios politeia and that Ath.Pol. is a more reliable source. But this is of no consequence for this particular prob­ lem, since the distinction between the ecclesia and the dicasterion is emphasized by Aristotle not only in the Pol. but also in the Ath.Pol., vi~., in the account of the Solonian property classes at 7.3: TOtC 8J TO (J I \ A • \ ' I ~ , ,~ , I h· "fJTtKOV TE/\OVCLV EKK/\"fJCtaC Kat otKacT"fJpLWV JLETEOWKE JLOVOV. ntIs passage we have (a) a clear distinction between the assembly and the people's court and (b) dicasteria in the plural. The singular in €CPECLC Elc TO 8'KaCT~ptoV (Ath.Poi. 9.1), mentioned by Rhodes, does not sup­ port the theory of an undivided Heliaia when compared with the plural TWV 8LKacT"fJptwv in Ath.Poi. 7.3, and so I conclude with reference both to the Politics and to the Ath.Poi. that the ecclesia and the dicas­ terion were different bodies of government already in the sixth century and that a plurality of dicasteria existed as early as Solon. Furthermore, if we follow Rhodes in accepting the account of Solon in the Ath.Pol., we must infer that KA~pWCLC was an archaic pro­ cedure applied to the selection of most officials as early as the begin­ ning of the sixth century.37 But if the officials were chosen by lot there is a fortiori nothing anachronistic in assuming that the jurors were appointed in the same way, and consequently Rhodes' suspicion of .& "EIEArrEAIA in Athens." I should like to thank Dr Rhodes for the discussion we have had about this topic and for sending me a copy of his typescript. II Quotation from Eisangelia (supra n.5) 52. 17 Arist. Ath.Po!. 8.1. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 143 KA'Y]PW7'6V ~v in Arist. Pol. 1274a5 is considerably weakened. His rejec­ tion of this piece of information would be more appropriate ifhe were highly sceptical towards Ath.Pol. 7-13 and believed that KA~pWCtC was a democratic procedure and therefore unknown before Cleisthenes. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the dicasterion created by Solon was identical with the ecclesia. In this case every appeal against a magistrate's decision even in a petty dispute would by the :cP€CtC dc 7'6 8LKaC7'~pWv be referred to the ecclesia. Now the Athenians were undoubtedly less litigious before the introduction of radical democracy in the second half of the fifth century; but if the ecclesia in addition to the political meetings had to hear all appeal cases, the result must have been a very high number of sessions. Rhodes, however, suggests himself that the number of ordinary meetings was raised from ten to forty only towards the end of the fifth century. I find this view of the development of the ecclesia plaus­ ible, but it is in my opinion incompatible with the theory that the dicasterion was not separated from the ecclesia until after Ephialtes. In sum, the Solonian court, as far as the evidence goes, seems to have been a separate body of government composed of several dicasteria, each of them manned with sworn jurors chosen by lot. Relevant evidence covering the period between Solon and Pericles is astonish­ ingly scarce, but I can adduce two sources which in my opinion sup­ port this conclusion. Herodotus relates that Miltiades in 493 was acquitted by a dicasterion and shortly afterwards elected strategos by the demos (Hdt. 6.104.2, quoted on p.140). And Aristotle states in the Ath.Pol. that Ephialtes deprived the Areopagus of its powers and gave some of them to the boule, some to the demos and some to the dicas­ teria (Arist. Ath.Pol. 25.2 quoted on p.139). These sources indicate (a) that the people's court was different from the ecclesia, (b) that the demos was identical only with the ecclesia and not with the dicasterion, and (c) that the people's court was divided into dicasteria before Ephialtes. v By this inspection of the sources I hope to have demonstrated that the identification of the dicasterion with the demos and so with the ecclesia is unfounded and contradicted by the evidence. But instead of maintaining that the dicasterion was the demos sitting in judgement 144 DEMOS, ECCLESIA AND DICASTERION some scholars assume that the dicasteria were judicial committees of the assembly and that the authority invested in the people's court was held only by delegation from the assembly.3s This theory is compat­ ible with my observation that the dicasterion is never identified with the demos (= the ecclesia). It is only natural to make a clear distinction between the subordinate committee and the superior agency delegat­ ing some of its powers to the committee. But other considerations demonstrate that the dicasterion cannot be described as a committee of the assembly.