How Often Did the "Ecclesia" Meet? Hansen, Mogens Herman Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1977; 18, 1; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 43

How Often Did the Ecclesia Meet? 

Mogens Herman Hansen 

T HE SUBJECT of this article is two interrelated problems: the 
number of ecclesiai held by the Athenians during a year and the 
meaning of the term €KKA'YJcla cVYKA'YJ7"oc.l The accepted view 

seems to be that the Athenians in the fourth century B.C., and possibly 
in the second half of the fifth century as well, held forty ordinary 
meetings of the assembly every year, viZ' four meetings every 
prytany; but in addition to the ordinary sessions extraordinary 
meetings could always be summoned whenever a crisis demanded 
rapid action or whenever the people decided to call a special meeting 
and reserve it for the discussion of one important problem. Of the 
four ordinary meetings held every prytany, one was the principal 
meeting (€KKA'YJda Kvp{a), the other three meetings were labelled 
€KKA'YJclat vop.tP.Ot or Wptcp.'vat, whereas the technical term for an 
extraordinary meeting was €KKA'YJc/a cVYKA'YJ7"oc.2 This view is usually 
bound up with the assumption that the ecclesia was the true sovereign 
and that no restriction could be imposed on the people's freedom of 
assembly. 

Two important objections can be raised against this view: (a) in 
Aeschines' and Demosthenes' speeches On the Embassy two crucial 

1 References in this article, hereafter cited by author's name and page number, are to: 
H. BENGTSON, Die Vertriige der griechisch-romischen Welt von 700 bis 338 v.Chr (Miinchen 

1962). K. G. BOHNECKE, Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der attischen Redner (Berlin 1843). G. 
BUSOLT and H. SWOBODA, Griechische Staatskunde I-II (Mtinchen 192{}-26). V. EHRENBERG, 

Der Staat der Griechen (Stuttgart 1965). G. GLOTZ, La cite grecque (Pads 1928). 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), and "How Many Athenians Attended 

the Ecclesia?" GRBS 17 (1976) 115-34. A. H. M. JONES, Athenian Democracy (Oxford 1960). 

D. M. LEWIS, "Notes on Artie Inscriptions, XXVI Elaphebolion 346," BSA 50 (1955) 25-26· 

B. D. MERITT, The Athenian Year (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1961). J. D. MIKALSON, The 
Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975). A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, 
The Dramatic Festivals of Athens,2 rev. J. Gould and D. M. Lewis (Oxford 1968). W. Kendrick 
PRITCHETT and O. NEUGEBAUER, The Calendars of Athens (Cambridge [Mass.] 1947). P. J. 
RHODES, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972). A. SCHAEFER, Demosthenes und seine Zeit 1-III2 
(Leipzig 1885-87). E. S. STAVELEY, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (London 1972). 
H. WElL, Les plaidoyers politiques de Demosthene (Pads 1883-86). 

2 Busolt 987-88, Glatz 182-83, Jones 108-09, Ehrenberg 67, Staveley 79. 

43 



44 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

passages, which have passed almost unnoticed,3 show that there was a 
limitation on the number of assemblies convened during a year or 
rather during a prytany, and (b) an analysis of the term EKK/..'Y}cla 

cVYK/..'Y}'TOC points to the conclusion that it certainly denotes a meeting 
of the assembly summoned in a special way, but not a meeting held 
in addition to the four meetings summoned every prytany. 

The Number of Ecclesiai held in a Prytany 
The two passages in Aeschines and Demosthenes are both con­

cerned with the controversy over the Peace of Philocrates. The text 
runs as follows: 

D 19 154 • ~, , • \ , , ., • ~ , '\ ,~, ~, 
EM. • • £1T£to'Y} yap £KKI\'Y}CLa p-£v OVK£'T 'IV V1TOI\OL1TOC ovo£p-La OLa 

, -() 'f' ~ •• • - '\\ •• -~, f3 '.L .• 'TO 1TpOKa'TaK£XP'Y}C at, OV'TOt 0 OVK a1T'{lcav, a/\/\ av'TOV OL£'TPL OV, ypa'f"-" 
.1. '.I.. f3 \' 'f3 \" - ~ , ,., , .,.,'Y}.,.,Lcp-a OVI\£VWV, rfJV OVI\7}V 1TOL'Y}caV'TOC 'TOV O'Y}P-OV KvpLav, a1TL£vaL 'TOve 

, f3 ' , 1Tp£C £tC 'T'Y}V 'TaXtc'T'Y}v, ••• 

AESCHIN. 2.61. 1Tapavayvw(}L O-r] P-0L Kal. 'T6 LlYJIJ,OC(}EVOVC tP-r]t/>tcp-a, EV cP 
\1 \ I \\A' "" \\'A' K£I\£V£t 'TOVC 1TpV'TaV£LC p-£'Ta 'Ta .uwvvCta 'Ta £v ac'T£( KaL rfJV £V .uWVVCOV 

• \ ' '.1. ~ , • \' , , _. ~, ., ~, ,~ , 
£KKI\'Y}CLav 1Tpoypa.,.,at OVO £KKI\'Y}CtaC, rfJV p-£v rn oYOOTJ £1TL O£Ka, rfJV O£ 

'Tn EVarn E1T1. OEKa, opt'wv 'T6V XPOVOV Kat. 1Tpovt/>aLpwv 'TaC EKK/..'Y}clac, 
, • ~ - '" - 'E'\ \ , , f3 1TpLV £1Tto'Y}p-'Y}cat 'TOVC a1TO 'TWV /\/\'Y}VWV 1Tp£C £tC. 

Following a muddled scholion, stating that Demosthenes refers to the 
three (sic) wptCp-EVat EKK/..'Y}ctaL (see p. 49), most scholars assume that 
EKK/..'Y}cla ovo£p-ta means no ordinary assem hl~' (Weil I 304); but this 
interpretation cannot, in my opinion, be upheld. for the following 
reasons. (a) Demosthenes says explicitly th.1l not a single ecclesia was 
left, and his emphatic expression must (olllprisl' both regular and 
extraordinary meetings. (b) This interprl'l.ltiOI1 is confirmed by 
Demosthenes' additional information that t hl' people in this awk­
ward situation had bestowed special powers on the Council of Five 
Hundred.' Why should the people resign some of their powers if an 
extraordinary assembly could be summoned at any moment? The 

3 In Eisange/ia 51-57 I discussed Dem. 19.154 in relation to Aeschin. 2.72. The interpreta­
tion of Oem. 19.154 offered in this article is basically the same, but since in 1975 I still 
believed in the traditional definition of £KKAT/cla cryKAT/TOC, my interpretation of Aeschin. 
2.72 was inadequate. In this study I amplify and improve what I wrote about .'\eschin. 2.72 

in Eisange/ia 54-55 and 57. 
4 For special powers bestowed on the Council by the ecclesia cf IG II2 127.34-35; 204.85-86; 

435.7-9; 1629.264-69; SEG XIV 47 B 3; and Rhodes 82. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 45 

most reasonable explanation is that only a fixed number of assemblies 
could be held every prytany and that the people in the spring of 347/6 
had exhausted the number prescribed by law. 

Demosthenes carried his decree of the Council referred to in 19.154 
on the third of Mounichion (Aeschin. 1.92). His information is con­
firmed by Aeschines (2.61), who, referring to the preceding period, 
maintains that Demosthenes (in the ecclesia held on Elaph. 8) arranged 
two meetings of the assembly on the 18th and 19th of Elaphebolion 
in order to <snatch away in advance' (7TpovcpaLpwv) the meetings of the 
assembly before the envoys from the other Hellenic cities had 
arrived in Athens. It is a much debated problem whether or not 
embassies from the other Greek cities were expected in Athens at 
this moment, but this is of no consequence for our argument. The 
important point is the tactics of which Demosthenes has allegedly 
availed himself. How could Demosthenes 7TpovcpaLpELv 'TaC EKKATjdac? 

Only if a fixed number of assemblies were held every prytany, since 
the Athenians were now forced to discuss the peace during the meet­
ings held on Elaph. 18 and 19 and take the vote on the peace. This 
interpretation squares with Demosthenes' information that the 
Athenians later in the prytany had in fact exhausted the number of 
ecclesiai at their disposal. 

We must turn to the only source which mentions explicitly how 
often the ecclesia met, viZ. Arist. Ath.Pol. 43.3: 0:' DE- 7TpV'TaVEOOVTEC ••• 

, , , f3" ""'~ "1' f3 \'" ., cvvayovCLv KaL 'TTjV OVI\TjV KaL 'TOV OTjfLOV· TTjV fLEV OVV OVI\TjV ocaL TjfL€paL, 

7T),~V EaV 'TLC acpEcLfLoc n, TOV DE MjfLov TETpaKLC 'Tfjc 7TpVTaV€{ac EKaCTTjC. 

All scholars hold that Aristotle is referring to ordinary meetings of the 
assembly, but this interpretation is not warranted by the text. Extra­
ordinary meetings are passed over in silence by Aristotle both in this 
passage and in 62.2, where he informs us of the per diem paid out to 
those who attended an ecclesia; the rate is It dr. for an EKKATjda Kvp{a 

and one dr. for an EKK),Tjda. If the Constitution of Athens is isolated from 
other sources, the inference must be that the Athenians during a year 
held forty meetings of the assembly, no more and no less. This 
inference is confirmed by Dem. 19.154 and Aeschin. 2.61, whereas the 
accepted view-that the Athenians summoned extraordinary meet­
ings when required in addition to the forty ordinary meetings-is 
based on a combination of Aristotle's information with information 
derived from sources referring to EKKATjdaL cOyKATj'TOL. The clue to the 
problem is therefore the meaning of the term EKKATjda COYK),TjTOC. 



46 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

What is an EICICA'YJcla CVyICA'YJTOc? 

'EICICA'YJCta dYICA'YJTOC is usually translated by 'extraordinary meeting 
of the assembly' and is taken to denote an urgent meeting summoned 
at short notice in addition to the ordinary m~etings. This interpretation 
is only to a certain degree supported by our sources, which are of 
three types. Most important are two passages in the forensic speeches 
of the fourth century; next comes the epigraphical evidence repre­
sented by some decrees of the Hellenistic period; and finally a dozen 
notes on the term CVYICA'YJTOC EICICA'YJeta can be found in the scholia and 
lexica of late antiquity and the Byzantine period. I will begin with the 
contem porary evidence: 

AESCHIN. 2.72. .,,)\€lovc S~ EICICA'YJctac CvyICA1}TOVC ~vaYlCa'€c(J€ EICICA'YJ-
1 r ' ./.. 'R '(J 'f3 .., ,. - 1 CLa..,€LV /L€Ta 'f'0,..ov lCaL opv OV, 'YJ Tac T€TaY/L€Vac €IC TWV VO/LWV. 

DEM. 19.122-23. €n yap 7'(VV 7TpaY/LaTwv OVTWJI /L€T€lnpWV lCat TOU 
1\ \ ,~ 1 \ 1\ \ \ \ 1 ~ \ '" , /L€I\/\OVTOC a0'YJI\OV, CVI\/\OYOL lCaL I\OyOL 7TaVTooa7TOL lCaTa T'YJV ayopav 

, "'./.. R - ~, , 1 \ , \ 1 1 "l:',/" 
€YLYVOVTO TOTe €'f'0,..OVYTO O'YJ /L'YJ CVYICI\'YJTOC €1C1C1\'YJCLa Y€VOLT €<:,aL'f'VTJC, 
l " 1 < - • - -'- \ (J - .1. ./.. 1 (J 1 - ~ 1 <,-€ '1' alCovcaVT€C V/L€ LC €/LOV Tat\'YJ 'YJ 'f 'YJ'f'LcaLC € TL TWV O€OVTWV V7T€P TWV 

m 1 ,\ 1 " ./.. 1 \ m '\ 'PWIC€WV, KaL Ta 7TpaY/LaT €K'fVYOL TOV 'PLI\L7T7TOV. 

In the Aeschines passage EICKA'YJetaL CVyKA'YJTOL are opposed to EKKA'YJ­

etaL T€TaY/L€JlaL EK TWV Vd/LWV, and we can infer that the calling of an 
EKKA'YJeta CVyKA'YJTOC must have been exceptional in times of peace. On 
the other hand, Aeschines does not tell us how an EKKA'YJeta CVyKA'YJTOC 

differed from an EICKA'YJcla EK TWV Vd/LWV. In this respect Demosthenes 
is more informative. He describes the conflict over the appointment 
of the third embassy sent to Philip in 346. Demosthenes was elected 
by the people together with most of the other envoys who had served 
on the first and second embassies, but he declined to serve for a third 
time and lodged an Egw/L0eta. Demosthenes' course of action took the 
other envoys by surprise, and they feared that he, after their de­
parture, would arrange an EKKA'YJeta CVyKA'YJTOC and turn the scales. In 
Dem. 19.123 the adverb Egalcpll'YJc is sufficient proof that an EKKA'YJcla 

CVyICA'YJTOC means a meeting of the assembly summoned at short 
notice, and this is confirmed by Demosthenes' moving description of 
the famous meeting of the ecclesia after Philip's capture of Elatea in 
339 (18.168ff). The news is reported to Athens in the evening. The 
booths are immediately removed from the agora. Early the next 
morning the Council prepares its probouleuma while the people 
assemble on the Pnyx so that the meeting of the assembly can take its 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 47 

beginning immediately after the l:ouncil has concluded its session. 
Although the term is not used, this meeting was probably an EKKA7Jda 
'\ C 1'\/ /, ~, CVyK/\'T}TOC. onverse y, EKK/\'T}CLaL TETaYJ-LEvaL EK TWV V0J-LWV must mean 

meetings held on fixed days or summoned at proper notice, which is 
in fact borne out by the only other occurrence of this term in the 
literary sources: Dem. 19.185 VJ-LLV DE 'TlPWTOV J-LEV T~V (3ovA~v aKovcaL 

\ / \ R \ ~ <:- ~ \ ~()'" '" / C \ R / 7TEpL 7TaVTWV KaL 7TP0,..OV/\EvcaL OEL, KaL TOV OTav TJ K7JpV<:, L Kat 7TpEc,..€LaLC 
, "/1""" ..... \ I " , ..... 7TpoYEypaJ-LJ-LEVOV, OVK aH' ELT EKK/\'T}CLav 7TOL'T}caL, KaL TaVT'T}V OTav EK TWV 

VOJ-LWV Ka()~KV, In this passage Demosthenes gives a detailed descrip­
tion of how the Athenian democracy worked. The phrase (hav EK TWV 

vOJ-Lwv Ka()~KrJ indicates that the meetings of the assembly were held 
on fixed days or summoned at several days' notice. There is no 
reference to EKKA7JdaL CUYKA7JTOL, but Demosthenes' silence on this 
point is not surprising. He wishes to emphasize the laborious and 
slow democratic procedure in opposition to the efficiency of an 
oligarchy or a tyranny. Accordingly, he concentrates on the ordinary 
procedure prescribed by the law and the possibility of summoning an 
urgent meeting is cunningly passed over in silence. 

No contemporary source mentions the extent of the period pre­
scribed by law for the summoning of an ecclesia at proper notice, but 
we can presumably trust Photius, who in a note on the word 7TPO-

7TEJ-L7TTa states that the prytaneis were requested to publish the agenda 
for the ecclesia at four days' notice: 7Tp07TEJ-L7TTa· TO 7TPO 7TlvTE ~J-LEPWV 

..... , " '"l, fl ,/ r"", fI ,r, ..... 
T'T}C EKK/\'T}CLaC 7Tpoypa<pHV OTL ECTaL 'T) EKK/\7JCLa EL TVXOL, tva Kat OL EV TOLC 

aypOLC cvvIA()WCL ••• (cf Lex.Seg. 296.8; Arist. Ath.Pol. 44.2; Dem. 25.9). 

In the decrees preserved on stone the term EKKA'T}cLa CUYKA7JTOC does 
not occur until the third century B.C. This observation, however, 
cannot form the basis of any argument from silence, since the. pre­
ambles of the decrees passed before 336 do ilOt include any informa­
tion about the type of assembly, and since only a few examples of the 
terms EKKA7Jda (IG II2 330, 331, 335, 354,358,375,405, 408, 436), EKKA'T}­

cLa EV Llwvucov (IG II2 345, 348, 350; Hesperia 8 [1939] 26-27 no. 6) and 
EKKA7Jda Kvp{a (IG II2 336, 340, 344, 352, 356, 359, 362, 363, 367, 368, 448) 
can be found in the decrees of the period 336-322. In some of these 
decrees the terms are in fact restored. Now, in a few decrees of the 
third and second century it is stated that the decision was made at an 
EKKA7Jda CUYKA7JTOC. Conversely, a variant of the probouleumatic 
formula indicates that the phrase (hav aL ~J-LEpaL aL EK TWV VOJ-LWV 

Eg~KWCLV Cef Dem. 19.185 and Aeschin. 2.72) forms a counterpart of 



48 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

the term EKKA7]cla CVYKA7]TOC. In these decrees EKKA7]cla CVYKA7]TOC is 
described not as an urgent meeting but as a meeting summoned by 
decree either of the Council (Hesperia 7 [1938] 476-79 no. 31; IG II2 897, 
954, cf 911) or of the assembly (IG 112 838, 945, cf 554) as against the 
meetings warranted by law (IG 112 652, 667, 682). The problem is 
whether the information derived from the Hellenistic sources can be 
extrapolated and applied to the democratic constitution of the fourth 
century. By a combination of several sources this problem can be 
answered in the affirmative. We know from Aeschin. 2.72 that the 
Athenians during a crisis had summoned more EKKA7]clat CVYKA7]TOt 

than EKKA7]clat 7"€TaYJLEVat EK 7"(OV vOJLwv. It can be demonstrated (see 
p.53) that Aeschines' statement refers to the spring of 346, when the 
peace with Philip was discussed and passed by the people. Through 
the detailed accounts of this period in Aeschines' and Demosthenes' 
speeches On the Embassy and On the Crown we have information about 
most-or probably all-of the ecclesiai summoned during this period. 
It is significant that neither Aeschines nor Demosthenes mentions any 
urgent meeting, whereas they both describe several meetings sum­
moned by decree, vi~. the meetings held on Elaph. 8, 18 and 19 (see 
p.55). It must be these ecclesiai that Aeschines has in mind when he 
refers to the numerous EKKA7]clat cVYKA7]TOL But these meetings of the 
assembly were not urgent meetings. The sessions on Elaph. 18 and 19, 
for example, were summoned at ten days' notice (see p.55). The 
traditional definition of EKKA7]cla CVyKA7JTOC must therefore be modi­
fied or rather extended so as to cover not only meetings summoned 
at short notice but also meetings warranted by a decree. 

The second part of the traditional definition is that the term 
EKKA7Jcla CVYKA7]TOC denotes a meeting summoned in addition to the 
ordinary meetings. The only evidence which can be produced in 
support of this view derives from the lexica and scholia, e.g. the 

h 1· D 24 20 " '" ,~ ~'\' SC 0 IOn on em. . : tCTEOV yap on KaTa JL7Jva TpEtC EKKI\7]CtaC 
, ~ R \' , -, '\ ' \ , , '" 

E7TOWVJlTO, ,..OVI\EVOJLEVOt 7TEpt TWV EV Tfj 7TOI\Et 7TpaYJLaTWV, 7T1\7]V Et JL7] apa 
, , '\ R \ , ., , '" "\ \ '\ I avaYK7] TtC KaTEl\a,..E 7TOI\EJLOV, weTE Kat 7TEpt EKEtJlOV al\l\7]JI EKKI\7]oaJl 

7TOLfjcaL 7TAEOJl TWV WptCJLEJlWJI. Explicitly or implicitly the same descrip­
tion can be found in the other scholia (schol. Ar. Ach. 19; schol. Dem. 
18.73, 19.123; schol. Aeschin. 1.60,3.24) and in the notes on the term 
EKKA7]cla CVyKA7]TOC (Poll. 8.116; Harp.; Suda; Etym.Magn. s.v. CVYKA7]TOC 

EKKA7]cla; Photius S.v. Kvp{a EKKA7]cla). However, the lexicographic 
tradition must be rejected, partly because the notes are muddled 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 49 

and contradictory and partly because they all refer to the period of 
twelve phylae. 

All the scholiasts and lexicographers seem in their descriptions of 
an EKKA:fJC£a CJYKA:YJTOC to have had serious difficulties in describing, 
the contrary term. Some of them set off f.KKfl1]ctcx£ CVYKfl1]TOt against 
EKKA'Y}cLaL KvpLaL (Photius; schol. Ar. Ach. 19; schol. Aeschin. 1.60), 
which is manifestly wrong, whereas others introduce the terms 
EKKA'Y}cLaL VOf.LLf.LOL (schol. Ar. Ach. 19) or WpLcf.LEvaL (schol. Ar. Ach. 19; 
schol. Dem. 18.73, 19.123,24.20), neither of which can be found in the 
sources of the classical or even the Hellenistic period. On the con­
trary, the descriptions given by Aeschines (TETaYf-LEvaL €K TWV vOf-Lwv, 

2.72) and Demosthenes (oTav EK TWV vOf.Lwv Ka8~KTJ' 19.185) indicate 
that there was no technical term for what the lexicographers and 
scholiasts call €KKA'Y}cLaL VOf.LLf.LOL or WpLcf.LEvaL and modern historians 
'ordinary meetings'. It is worth noticing that Harpocration s.v. 
CVYKA'Y}TOC €KKA'Y}cta refers to Demosthenes' speech On the Embassy 
(same reference in Etym.Magn. and the Suda), and there is no indication 
in the notes that the ancient and mediaeval scholars have based their 
descriptions on other sources (e.g., forensic speeches lost to us). 

Furthermore, the scholiasts and lexicographers refer invariably to 

three ecclesiai every month instead of four ecclesiai every prytany.5 In 
so far as their notes are reliable they refer to the period of twelve 
phylae (when a prytany probably was concurrent with a month),6 
although their notes are brought as comments on passages in Aris­
tophanes, Aeschines and Demosthenes. 

Thus the lexicographic tradition must be rejected. The description 
found in the Hellenistic decrees of what an €KKA'Y}cta cVYKA'Y}TOC is could 
be reconciled with the information derived from Aeschines and 
Demosthenes. The same does not hold good of the lexicographers' 
explanation of the relationship between EKKA'Y}cLaL CVYKA'Y}TOL and other 
meetings of the assembly. The view that €KKA'Y}ctaL CVYKA'Y}TOL were 
meetings summoned in addition to • ordinary meetings' does not 
square with Arist. Ath.Pol., and it is plainly contradicted by IG 112 212. 

'EKKA1]atctL aVyKA1]Tot and the Number of Ecclesiai in a Prytany 

At Ath.Pol. 43.3 Aristotle states that the prytaneis summoned the 

6 -rP€IC -rov p.T)VOC schol. Ar. Ach. 19; schol. Aeschin. 1.60; schol. Oem. 18.73, 19.123. -rp€k 
Kcc-ra p.ijvcc Phot.; schol. Aeschin. 3.24; schol. Oem. 24.20. Kcc-ra p.ijvcc Harp., Suda; Etym.Magn. 

6 Cf. Pritchett and Neugebauer 68. 



50 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

people four times in the course of their term of office, and he describes 
the obligatory items on the agenda for each of these four meetings. 
According to the traditional view Aristotle's account is misleading 
in so far as he does not refer to (KKA1]cta£ CVYKA1]TO£ which could be 
summoned in addition to the forty (KKA1]cta£ vop.£p.o," I have argued 
above that this conception of the term EKKA1]cLa CVyKA1]TOC is not 
founded on reliable sources. Instead of interpreting Aristotle in the 
light of the lexicographers, we should rather compare his account 
with the information obtained from the forensic speeches. Demos­
thenes 19.154 shows that there was a limit to the number of assemblies, 
and if we combine Demosthenes' statement with Aristotle's account, 
the inference is that the forty assemblies represent the total of 
assemblies held every year. It follows that the forty assemblies com-
·dbh·A",\ d'A' ,. ~ pnse ot €KK TJnaL CVyK TJTOL an €KK TJCLCt.£ T€Tayp.€VaL €K TWV 

vop.wv. If one of the four meetings held during a prytany was sum­
moned by the prytaneis at short notice or in accordance with a decree 
passed on a previous assembly or by the Council, the meeting was an 
(KKA1]cLa CVYKATJTOC. On the other hand, if it was summoned by the 
prytaneis at their own initiative and at four days' notice it was an 
'ordinary meeting'. Now, Aristotle describes some fixed items on the 
agenda for all the four meetings held during a prytany. If the (KKATJcta£ 

dYKATJTO£ were included among the four meetings we must assume 
that the people at an EKKATJcLa CVYKATJTOC had to deal with routine 
matters prescribed for this meeting before they could debate the 
urgent or important matter which had occasioned the summoning of 
the people at short notice or by a special decree. This assumption is 
proved by IG 112 212. 

IG 112 2127 is an honorific decree for the Bosporan princes Spartocus, 
Paerisades and Apollonius. It was moved by Androtion of Gargettus 
and passed in the archonship of Themistocles (347/6) in a meeting of 
the assembly held during Prytany viii. After an enumeration of the 
honours bestowed on the princes it is decreed that a point of detail be 
postponed to a subsequent meeting. The prospective proedroi for the 
meeting fixed to Elaph. 18 are requested to bring up for discussion 
the Athenian debt to the Bosporan princes. Now, the ecclesia held on 
Elaph. 18 in the year 347/6 was the notorious meeting when the peace 
with Philip was discussed. It was an EKKATJcLa CVyKA1]TOC, since the date 

7 =Syll.3 206; Tod II 167. During the same meeting of the assembly the Athenians 
concluded an alliance with Mytilene (IG II2 213). 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 51 

of the meeting was fixed by a decree carried by Demosthenes in the 
eccIesia held on Elaph. 8 (see p.55). Consequently the honorific decree 
for the Bosporan princes must have been passed either during the 
meeting held on Elaph. 8 or in the subsequent meeting held im­
mediately after the Greater Dionysia, presumably on Elaph. 16 (see 
p.5S). When IG II2 212 was passed it was known that the meeting on 
Elaph. 18 was scheduled for the discussion of the peace with Philip. 
Nevertheless the people decided to place on the agenda for this 
ecclesia an item which does not seem to have been urgent, and further­
more the discussion of this point was to take place only after the 
assembly had dealt with some items concerning religious matters. 
The passage in question runs: 1TEpL OE TWV XP1]/LCXTWV TWV [01>EL ]A[ 0 ]/LE­
vwv TOLC 1T(ud TOLC .I1EUKWVOC 01T[WC a]v Ct.1TOAa{3Wnv, XP1]/LaTtccu TOVC 

1TpOEO[pOC oX] av AaXWn 7TPOEOPEUELV EV TWL 01//LWL [T* oy JOO1]L E1TL oEKa 
1TPWTOV /LETa Ta tEpa, ••• (IG II2 212.53-57). These lines must be com­
pared with Aristotle's description of the agenda for two of the four 
meetings held during a prytany: ai OE ouo (EKKA1]cLaL) 7TEPI. TWV aAAWV 

" , 1" \ I (I "t - 'Y I ~ \ HCLV, EV aLC KEI\EVOVnV O£ VO/LOL TpLa /LEV £EpWV xp1]/Lan~HV, TpLa OE 

K1/PVgLV Kal. 1TpEc{3etaLc, Tpta OE OcLWV (Ath.Pol. 43.6). A combination of 
IG II2 212.53-57 and Ath.Pol. 43.6 must lead to the conclusion that the 
ecclesia on Elaph. 18 was opened by a discussion of three items on 
tepa. Then came the Athenian debt to the Bosporan princes as the 
first of the three items K1/PVgLV KaL 1Tpec{3etaLc, and the peace with 
Philip can only have been the fifth item discussed in this crucial 
meeting. So an EKKA1]cLa CUyKA1]TOC was not reserved for the discussion 
of some urgent matter. It was not an additional meeting, but one of 
the forty EKKA1]cLa£ described by Aristotle. 

Distribution of Ecclesiai according to Days of the Prytany 

If the prytaneis were empowered to summon only four meetings 
of the assembly during their term of office, they must have reserved 
at least one meeting for one of the last days of the prytany, so that 
they, in an emergency, always had the possibility of calling up an 
EKKA1]cLa cUYKA1]TOC. The result must have been a concentration of 
ecclesiai held on the last days of the prytany, and this assumption 
seems to be confirmed by the epigraphical evidence. In his study 
The Athenian Year, B. D. Meritt has collected and discussed the dated 
meetings of the assembly recorded in the decrees of the period 
between 346/5 (the first known example of a reference both to the 



52 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

conciliar and to the festival year) and 310/09 (the last example before 
the introduction of the two additional phylae). Meritt discusses a total 
of 70 decrees passed on 63 meetings of the assembly. Of these 63 
ecclesiai 38 are assigned to ordinary years, 24 to intercalary years, 
whereas in one case the type of the year cannot be ascertained. A 
tabulation of the evidence adduced by Meritt shows that in ordinary 
years more than one-third and in intercalary years more than two­
fifths of all meetings of the assembly were held in the last quarter of 
the prytany. The calendar equations, however, are often restored and 
many of Meritt's restorations are debatable. Accordingly it is im­
possible at the present state of the inquiry to arrive at any indisputable 
conclusion. This complicated problem must be reserved for a future 
study. 

Aeschines 2.72 and the Number of Ordinary 
and Extraordinary Ecclesiai 

I have only briefly discussed the most important source for the 
relationship between ordinary and extraordinary meetings of the 
assembly, viZ., Aeschines' information about the number of €KKA1JclaL 

CVyKA1J'TOL compared to the number of ecclesiai prescribed by law. I 
will quote this crucial passage once more and this time in its context: 
'1: '\ <:' , X' '-',\- ,.,. 'A ' 'A{} E!>EI\EL7TOV OE EppOV1JCOV 1Jp,WV Ot 7T0 L'TaL, 77JV ovcav op,o OYOVp,EVWC TJ-

, '\' <:'" A' A' , 'Y {} , ,\ 'Y , vaLWV· 7T EWVC OE EKK 1JCLac CVyK 1J'TOVC 1JvaYKa",EC E EKK 1JeLa",ELV p,E'Ta 

.I. '{J '{} 'R '" " -, If <:"'" .1.,\ , 'f'0 ov KaL opv/-,OV, 1J 'Tac 'TE'Tayp,Evac EK 'TWV VOP,WV. OV'TW 0 1JV c'f'a Epa 

Ka~ €7T£KtvSvva 'T<X 7Tpayp,a'Ta, bjC'TE ~vayKacf}1J ypaifaL if~cpLcp,a K1JcpLCOcpWV 

'n '1' - .I.'A ", - X' , A- , o aLCXvLEvc, ELC 'TWV 'f'L wv KaL E'TaLpWV 'TWV ap1J'Toc, EK7T ELV 'T1Jv 

, 'A' \, \ - t - \ r ...." " 'TaXLC'T1JV V'TL0XOV 'TOV E7TL 'TWV V7T1JpE'TLKWV, KaL "'1J'TELV 'TOV C'Tpa'T1JYov 

'TOV €7T1. 'Tfi ovvap,EL 'TE'Tayp,Evov • •• Aeschines offers this piece of in­
formation in a digression on the political and military situation 
leading up to the Peace of Philocrates (Aeschin. 2.70-73). The passage 
is opened by the phrase {JovAop,aL 0' vp,ac Ka~ 'TOVC KaLpovc V7Top,vf/caL 

€V oTc €{JOVAEVEC{}E (70), and the end of the argument is O'TL S' &A1J{}f/ 

,\ , " - .1. .I.' '" {} - \ , \, EyW, aKOvea'TE 'TOV 'f'1J'f'Lcp,a'TOe, KaL avap,VTJc 1J'TE 'TOV 7TOI\Ep,OV, Kat 'T1JV 
, I ,- ~,\ t , '\\', , '{J , -

ELp1JV1JV 'Tove 'TWV 07T WV 1JYEp,ovae, al\l\a p'1J 'Tove 7TpEe ELC. a7TaL'TEt'TE 

(73). In these few paragraphs Aeschines surveys the whole war from 
357 to 346, and consequently we must determine which period 
Aeschines has in mind when he refers to the numerous €KKA1JclaL 

CVYK'\1J'TOL. 

Aeschines' point of departure is the struggle for Amphipolis at the 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 53 

beginning of the war, but the information about the EKKA7JdaL 

cVyKA7]TOL is concerned with a description of a military crisis in the 
Chersonese caused by Philip's attack on Thrace. Aeschines' statement 
about the ecclesiai is preceded by the information that the Athenian 
cleruchs were about to leave the Chersonese, and it is followed by a 
reference to a decree proposed and carried by Cephisophon of Paiania 
to the effect that Antiochus, the commander of the dispatch-boats, 
shall leave Athens and seek out the strategos Chares, whose where­
abouts are unknown to the Athenians. Since Schaefer (I 443 n.1) most 
historians have connected Cephisophon's decree with Philip's attack 
on Thrace in 353, but I will adopt the older view proposed by Bohn­
ecke (384-85) and argue that the decree was passed in the spring of 
346 in connection with Philip's campaign against Cersobleptes. 

a. There is nothing strange about Aeschines mentioning the 
beginning of the "var and the struggle for Amphipolis, but it would 
indeed be odd if Aeschines had concluded his survey with a reference 
to events which took place seven years before the peace. 

b. Aeschines ends his digression by having Cephisophon's decree 
read out to the jurors. This is in keeping with §§ 90-92 where Chares' 
letter from the spring of 346 is adduced as evidence and cited in 
extenso. It is most unlikely that Aeschines would have given such 
prominence to a decree passed seven years before the peace negotia­
tions; furthermore, the date 353 is incompatible with Aeschines' 
comment on the decree in § 74: PH([>I£MA. or /L~V KaLpo~ TijC 7T6A€wc 

~ , l' • ,- " " "w k f TOLOVTOt €V OLC ot 7T€pt T7JC €Lp7]VYJC €ytYVOVTO I\OYOL. e now rom 
Aeschin. 2.90-92 that Chares was general in 347/6 and active in Thrace 
during the spring of 346. The natural interpretation of 2.72-73 is in 
my opinion that Cephisophon's psephisma is contemporary with the 
negotiations for peace and must be dated Elaph. 346. 

c. In his speech for the prosecution Demosthenes anticipates one of 
Aeschines' lines of defense (19.332). He has recently heard, so he tells 
the jurors, that Aeschines will clear himself of suspicion by blaming 
Chares. In his speech for the defense Aeschines refers twice to Chares. 
In 90-92 he is mentioned as the author of a letter sent to Athens, 
whereas in 70-73 Aeschines does in fact blame Chares for the conduct 
of the war. For our purpose it is of no consequence whether Demos­
thenes knew in advance what Aeschines intended to say or later 
revised his speech in accordance with what Aeschines actually said. 
The important point is that Dem. 19.332 must be a refutation of 



54 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

Aeschin. 2.7~73, and accordingly Cephisophon's decree concerning 
Chares must be dated to the spring of 346. 

d. According to Demosthenes (19.78-79) Aeschines will argue in 
favour of the peace by maintaining that the Chersonese was saved. 
Demosthenes rejoins that Philip's menace to the Chersonese and the 
conclusion of the peace are irrelevant to the trial, which is about the 
unconditional surrender of Phocis. Demosthenes' argument must 
apply to Aeschin. 2.72-73, and the conclusion is that Aeschines in 
these paragraphs deals with the situation in 346. 

Survey of the Ecclesiai held in Elaphebolion 346 

Assuming that Aeschines' statement about the numerous €I(I(A'1}cLat 

cVyI(A'1}'Tot refers to the spring of 346, we are in a position to give a 
precise interpretation of his statement since our sources provide us 
with information about most, probably even about all the ecclesiai 
held during this period. 

According to Aeschin. 2.82 Philip opened his campaign against 
Thrace at the same time that the first Athenian embassy set out for 
their home journey. The Athenian envoys arrived in Athens in the 
beginning of Elaphebolion, and during this month took place those 
stormy meetings of the assembly that resulted in the Peace of philoc­
rates and the dispatch of the second embassy to Philip in the be­
ginning of Mounichion. Thanks to the detailed information provided 
by Aeschines and Demosthenes in their speeches On the Embassy and 
On the Crown, we can date most of the ecclesiai held during this period 
and we can approximately date the remainder within a margin of 
only three to five days. Admittedly, there are fundamental contra­
dictions between our sources, but it is important to emphasize that 
Demosthenes and Aeschines do not quarrel about the number and 
dates of the meetings. Their disagreement is concerned only with 
what happened during these meetings. Admittedly, Aeschines 
accuses Demosthenes of tampering with the chronology (Aeschin. 
2.96, 13~31, 153), but this controversy is not over the assemblies held 
during Elapheb6lion. Aeschines protests against Demosthenes' time­
table for the second embassy in relation to the military situation in 
Thrace and Phocis (Dem. 19.57~1). 
Elaph. 5-7: The first embassy's report to the Council (Aeschin. 2.45-46; 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 55 

3.63, 66-67; Dem. 19.234). Demosthenes proposes and carries two 
probouleumata, one granting Philip's envoys a safe-conduct (Aeschin. 
3.63) and another honouring the envoys who have served on the first 
embassy (Aeschin. 2.45-46; Dem. 19.234). Furthermore, Demosthenes 
moves a decree of the Council ordering the prytaneis to summon a 
meeting of the assembly on Elaph. 8 (Aeschin. 3.66-67; see Note A on 
p.56). 
Elaph. 8: The first embassy's report to the ecclesia (Aeschin. 2.47-54, 61, 
65, 67, 109-10; 3.64-65, 67-68; Dem. 19.234-36). The people ratify 
Demosthenes' probouleuma on a safe-conduct to Philip's envoys 
(Aeschin. 2.53, 109) and his honorific decree for the first embassy 
(Aeschin. 2.53; Dem. 19.234). Demosthenes proposes and carries a 
decree that the prytaneis summon the assembly on two successive 
days immediately after the Greater Dionysia and the assembly held 
in the precinct of Dionysos. The meetings are fixed for Elaph. 18 and 
19 and are intended for the conclusion of peace and alliance with 
Philip. The first day is reserved for the discussion of the peace, the 
second for the passing of the decree (Aeschin. 2.53, 61, 65, 67, 109-10; 
3.64-65, 68). 
Elaph. 16(?): Meeting of the assembly after the Greater Dionysia in 
the Theatre of Dionysos (Aeschin. 2.61; see Note B on p.57). 
Elaph. 18: First meeting of the assembly (Aeschin. 2.63-66, 134; 
3.69-71; Dem. 18.21; 19.13-14, 144; see Note C on p.59). The meeting 
is opened by a discussion of three items 7TEPL nvv iEPWV and of the 
Athenian debt to the Bosporan princes (IG II2 212). Then follows 
the debate on the peace with Philip. All the rhetores who address 
the people speak in favour of TO o6YfLa TWV CVVEOPWV and oppose the 
proposal made by Philocrates (Aeschin. 3.71). Proxenus' letter is read 
out to the people (Aeschin. 2.134). 
Elaph. 19: Second meeting of the assembly (Aeschin. 2.63, 65, 66-68, 
75-80; 3.71-72; Dem. 18.21; 19.15-16, 57, 144, 159-61, 174, 291). 
Antipater addresses the people on behalf of the Macedonian envoys; 
the debate on the peace is reopened, and the result is that Philocrates' 
proposal is passed. 
Elaph. 20-24( ?): Appointment of the members of the second embassy 
to Philip (Aeschin. 2.82; Dem. 19.17, 150) and passing of the decree 
containing the instructions for the embassy (Aeschin. 2.98, 101, 104, 
120; Dem. 19.37, 151, 161, 174,278; see Note D on p.60). 
Elaph. 25: Demosthenes is appointed proedros and presides over this 



56 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

meeting of the assembly (Aeschin. 2.82-85, 90; 3.73-75). Philocrates 
proposes and carries a decree that the allies take the oath on the peace 
immediately after the meeting on the same day (Aeschin. 3.74). 
Aleximachus of Peleces moves a proposal that Critobulus take the 
oath on behalf of Cersobleptes. The proposal is put to the vote in 
spite of Demosthenes' protests (Aeschin. 2.83-86). 
Moun. 3: Since no more meetings of the assembly are left, Demos­
thenes proposes and carries in the Council a decree that the second 
embassy to Philip set out immediately in order to find Philip and 
administer the oath on the peace (Aeschin. 2.91-92; Dem. 18.25-29; 
19.150-54; see Note Eon p.60). 

Notes on the ecdesiai held during Elaphebolion 346 

A. The meetings of the Council and of the assembly during the beginning of 
Elaphebolion. Since Schaefer's account in Demosthenes und seine Zeit 
(II 207-11) there has been some confusion concerning the number of 
assemblies held in the beginning of Elaphebolion. To summarize the 
relevant passages of Aeschines: 

2.45-46: The embassy's report to the Council; Demosthenes proposes a 
probouleuma honouring the envoys. 47-54: The embassy'S report to the people; 
ratification of the honorific decree for the envoys and of the decree granting 
Philip's envoys a safe-conduct; Demosthenes proposes and carries a decree 
prescribing two ecclesiai on Elaph. 18 and 19. 55: In the Council Demosthenes 
proposes and carries a decree providingproedria for Philip's envoys when they 
arrive. 
3.63: In the Council Demosthenes moves a probouleuma granting Philip's 
envoys a safe-conduct. 64-66: digression. 67: Demosthenes carries a decree 
prescribing an ecclesia on Elaph. 8. 68: Philip's envoys arrive, and Demosthenes 
proposes and carries a decree ordering the prytaneis to summon two ecclesiai 
on Elaph. 18 and 19. 

Schaefer takes it for granted that Demosthenes' decree for an 
ecdesia on Elaph. 8 was a "'~c/>tcJLa TOV S~JLOV CVolksbeschluss', 210 n.2), 
and consequently he is forced to assume that no less than four meet­
ings of the assembly were held during the first part of Elaphebolion. 
First ecclesia (208-10): The Athenian envoys' report to the people 
(Aeschin. 2.47-54). Second ecdesia (210): Demosthenes carries his 
decree that the prytaneis summon a meeting of the assembly on 
Elaph. 8 (Aeschin. 3.67). Third ecdesia (210-11): The meeting held on 
Elaph. 8 (ibid.). Fourth ecclesia (211): During the Greater Dionysia 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 57 

Demosthenes proposes and carries his decree that the prytaneis sum­
mon two meetings of the assembly on Elaph. 18 and 19 (Aeschin. 
3.68). 

This reconstruction is open to several objections, of which the two 
most important are: (a) according to Aeschin. 2.53 Demosthenes 
proposed and carried his decree fixing the two ecclesiai for Elaph. 18 
and 19 on the first meeting of the assembly after the envoys' return 
to Athens. Schaefer's reconstruction results in a contradiction between 
Aeschin. 2.53 and 3.68. (b) Schaefer assumes that an ecclesia took place 
during the Dionysia. Since Aeschines complains of the ecclesia held on 
Elaph. 8, the day for the proagon, he would undoubtedly have pointed 
it out to the jurors if Demosthenes' policy had resulted in an ecclesia 
held during the festival itself. Aeschines' silence disproves Schaefer's 
reconstruction. 

The clue to the problem is, in my opinion, that Demosthenes' 
decree ordering the meeting of the assembly on Elaph. 8 was passed 
as a decree of the Council and not of the people. We know from the 
Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (6.2) and from the epigraphical evidence (see 
pA8) that an assembly might be convened by order of the Council. 
Aeschines does not state whether the decree was passed in the Council 
or in the ecclesia, and we have other examples of decrees of the Council 
being described by Aeschines as l/J7Jcp{Cf..HXTa without any specification.s 

Assuming that Aeschines in 3.67 refers to a decree of the Council, 
we may conclude that the meeting of the ecclesia described at 2.47-54 
is the meeting held on Elaph. 8 and fixed by Demosthenes' decree, 
which was proposed and carried in the Council during the meeting 
when the envoys made their report on the embassy. On this interpre­
tation only one minor problem is left. According to Aeschin. 2.53 and 
55 Philip's envoys did not arrive in Athens until after Elaph. 8, but at 
3.68 he indicates that they had already arrived when, on Elaph. 8, 
Demosthenes proposed and carried his decree prescribing the two 
ecclesiai on Elaph. 18 and 19. In 3.68, however, the chronological 
sequence of the events is not stressed, and I prefer this slight in­
accuracy to the complicated reconstruction proposed by Schaefer. 

B. The date of the ecclesia after the Greater Dionysia. Apart from the 
people's revision of the laws, which took place on Hecatombaion 11 

8 Demosthenes' decree on proedria for the Macedonian envoys is described as a decree of 
the Council in Oem. 18.28 and Aeschin. 2.55, whereas in Aeschin. 2.110 and 3.76 it is referred 
to as a rpfJ<pup.a without further indication. 



58 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

(Oem. 24.20, 26), the ecclesia held after the Greater Oionysia was the 
only regularly scheduled meeting of the assembly. The epigraphical 
evidence indicates that in the fourth century this meeting was usually 
held on Elaph. 19, whereas some decrees of the Hellenistic period 
point to Elaph. 21.9 In the year 347/6, however, the meeting took place 
before Elaph. 18, as is apparent from Aeschines' paraphrase (2.61) of 
Demosthenes' decree passed on Elaph. 8, 7TapaveXyvw(h 87} fLOt KaL 'TO 

A 8 ' .1. '.1.. ' l' \ " , \ \ A I \ t.J1'JfLOC EVOVC 'f'1'J'f'LcfLa, EV cP KE/\EVEL 'TOVC 7TpV'TaVELC fLE'Ta 'Ta t.J LOVVCLa 'Ta 
,,, \ \ , A I , \' '.1. ~ I , \ I \ \ 

EV aC'TEL Kal. 'T1'JV EV t.J LOVVCOV EKK/\1'JCtaV 7Tpoypa'f'at ovo EKKI\1'JCtaC, 'T1'JV fLEV 
-,~, ,,~, ,~, _" ,,~, N h 

'TTJ oyoOTJ E7TI. OEKa, 'T1'JV OE TTJ EvaTTJ E7H OEKa. ow, we ave some 
examples of ecclesiai held on Elaph. 12, 13 or 14 (cf. Mikalson 127-29), 
but in all three cases the assembly summoned was an extraordinary 
meeting interrupting the festival. The ecclesia referred to by Aeschines 
at 2.61 must have been the ordinary meeting held in the Theatre of 
Dionysos after the festival was over, where one of the items on the 
agenda was the conduct of the festival and offences committed during 
the festival. The Greater Dionysia probably included the days Elaph. 
10-14,10 but Oem. 21.9 shows that the meeting of the assembly was 
summoned not only after the Dionysia but also after the Pandia. 
Accordingly, the date for the meeting in 347/6 must be either Elaph. 
16 or 17. Two arguments can be adduced in support of Elaph. 16. IG 
II2 212 was presumably passed at the meeting held after the Oionysia, 
and in lines 53-57 the ecclesia held on the 18th is described not as a 
meeting Elc avpLOv but as the meeting held on the 18th. Furthermore, 
in his recent study on the civil calendar Mikalson has pointed out that 
the 16th was a regular meeting day, whereas we have not a single 
example of any assembly summoned on the 17th in any month.ll 

Elaph. 16 is therefore the probable date of the meeting after the 
Dionysia referred to in Aeschin. 2.61. 

'Elaph. 19: IG lIt 345; Hesperia 8 (1939) 26-27 no.6 (332/1); IG 111 348 (331/0). IG 112 372 
(322/1). according to Schweigert's restoration in Hesperia 8 (1939) 173-75 no.4. Meritt 
(110-11) prefers the restoration Elaph. 13 on the assumption that 322/1 must have been an 
intercalary year. Elaph. 21: The evidence is collected and presented by Mikalson (132-33). 

10 Pickard-Cambridge 68ff. Aeschin. 2.61 and IG 112 212 disprove Mikalson's suggestion 
(137) that the Dionysia included the days Elaph. 10-16 and that the Pandia occurred on 
Elaph. 17. 

11 It must, however. be remembered that Mikalson's table of meetings of the ecclesia 
according to days of the month is only of limited value since the assemblies were sum­
moned in accordance with the conciliar calendar and since his statistics cover both the 
period of ten Phylae and that of twelve Phylae. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 59 

C. The ecclesiai on Elaphebolion 18 and 19. An investigation of the num­
ber of ecclesiai held by the Athenians in Elaph. 346 presupposes a 
discussion of the problem whether the ecclesiai on Elaph. 18 and 19 
were reckoned as one or as two meetings. The principal source for 
this problem is Aeschines' On the Embassy where he repeatedly refers 
to Demosthenes' decree that the prytaneis summon the people on 
Elaph. 18 and 19 for a debate on the peace. In the first of these passages 
(53) Aeschines tells the jurors that Demosthenes ordered the pry­
taneis to summon one meeting over two days (EKK'\TjcLUV E1T' OVO 

TJ,.dpuc), but when Aeschines recurs to this decree in 61 and 65, he 
states that Demosthenes proposed two meetings of the assembly, the 
first on Elaph. 18 and the second on Elaph. 19: 1TpoypaljJuL ovo EKKA-f}-

, , , ~,~ , "~ , ,~ , ~" "~ , (2 61) ~ 
CLUC, TTJV /-LEV Tn oyOOYJ E1T' OEKU, TTjV OE TTJ EVUTYJ E1TL OEKU . ; TYJ 

, I ~'\ ~ Q \ I 'Q \ I ~ C<' r I 
/-LEV 1TpOTEfX! TWV EKKIITjCLWV CV/-L(-'OVIIEVELV TOV (-'OVII0/-LEVOV, TYJ 0 VCTEfX! 

TOVC 1TPOEOPOVC E1TtIjJTjc/>{'ELV TaC yvwl-'uc ••• (2.65). For our purposes the 
passages in 61 and 65 seem to be more carefully phrased than 53, and 
similarly, in their detailed descriptions of the debate on Elaph. 18 and 
19, both Aeschines and Demosthenes speak of two different meetings 
(Aeschin. 2.63, 67; 3.71; Dem. 19.13). Finally, in support of the view 
that the ecclesiai on Elaph. 18 and 19 must be treated as two separate 
meetings I can adduce the al1ies' counterproposal to Demosthenes' 
decree paraphrased by Aeschines at 2.60: 1TpoypaifJaL TOVC 1TpvTavELc 

, \ I ~I '" ,~, I Q \ I 8 ,~ 
EKKI\TjCLUC ovo KUTU TOV V0l-'0V, EV OE TUVTULC (-'OVIIEVCUC UL 1TEpL TTjC 

Elp~vTjc 'A8Tjvu{ovc. A double debate in two successive meetings seems 
to have been a statutory requirement for the conclusion of a peace 
and probably of other important treaties as well (Thuc. 1.44.1, 
3.36.4-6; IG 12 63.33-36= Meiggs and Lewis no.69). The inference is that 
an ecclesia ran for one day only and that an ecclesia held on the next 
day was a new meeting presided over by a new board of proedroi and 

, I _ ~ 

a new E1TLCTUTTjC TWV 1TpOWpWV. 

On the other hand, the two meetings on Elaph. 18 and 19 were 
prescribed by one decree, the agenda was the same for both meetings, 
and the prytaneis issued probably only one summons. Aristotle writes 
that the prytaneis were empowered to summon four meetings during 
their term of office, and it is not inconceivable that two ecclesiai on 
successive days were reckoned as only one of the four summonses. 
The problem cannot be solved on the basis of the available evidence, 
and accordingly, in my survey of the number of ecclesiai held during 
Elaphebolion 346 (see p.65), I will take both possibilities into account. 



60 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

D. The appointment of the second embassy to Philip. In their detailed 
account of the ecclesiai held on Elaph. 18 and 19 neither Demosthenes 
nor Aeschines mentions the appointment of the second embassy, and 
the election of the envoys is only briefly referred to in three passages. 
Aeschin. 2.82, Dem. 19.17 and 19.150. At 19.17 Demosthenes states 
that the envoys were appointed by the people, and it is apparent 
from Aeschin. 2.82 that the election took place before the meeting 
of the assembly on Elaph. 25. On the other hand, the Aeschines 
passage indicates that the envoys were appointed only after the 
ecclesia on Elaph. 19, which means that the Athenians must have held 
a meeting of the assembly between Elaph. 19 and 25. Dem. 19.17 
points to the same conclusion, since there is an obvious break in the 
argument after the description in §§ 15-16 of the assembly held on 
Elaph. 19. 

At 19.150, however, Demosthenes proceeds immediately from the 
conclusion of the peace (on Elaph. 19) to a description of his own 
efforts to persuade the embassy to leave Athens as soon as possible. 
The election of the envoys is taken for granted as a part of the peace. 
Furthermore Aeschin. 2.82 and Dem. 19.17 are not incompatible with 
the view that the election took place on Elaph. 19. Thus we cannot be 
sure that an electoral assembly was held between Elaph. 19 and 25. 
We can seek light on this difficult problem only by investigating 
whether the Athenians usually, when a treaty was passed, appointed 
their envoys at the same meeting or at a subsequent meeting of the 
assembly. The epigraphical evidence provides us with four indubitable 
examples of envoys being appointed at the meeting when the treaty 
was passed (IG II2 34, 36, 43, 360) and four more examples where 
immediate appointment is likely or at least possible (IG 112 31,41, 124, 
230). Against this we find only one alliance providing for the election 
of five envoys without mentioning the names of those appointed (IG 
II2 116). In this case the appointment may have been made at a subse­
quent meeting and published on a separate stele (IG II2 175 as in­
terpreted by Bengtson no.293). This evidence favours the view that 
the Athenians in 346 did appoint their envoys at the ecclesia held on 
Elaph. 19, but IG II2 116 and 175 may be interpreted as an example of 
an election at a subsequent meeting, and accordingly the answer to 
the question must, on the basis of this evidence, be a non liquet. 

E. The period from Elaphebolion 25 to Mounichion 3. In 19.154 Demos­
thenes states that his proposal ordering the second embassy to leave 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 61 

Athens without delay was passed (on Moun. 3) as a decree of the 
Council, since no more meetings of the assembly were left and since, 
accordingly, the people had empowered the Council to take action. 
The preceding ecclesia described by Aeschines and Demosthenes is the 
meeting on Elaph. 25 when Demosthenes was proedros, and we may 
now ask whether there is any possibility of assuming a meeting of the 
assembly held during the period Elaph. 26 to Moun. 2. 

Moun. 1 and 2 were festival days, and an ecclesia could be summoned 
only in an emergency (Mikalson 183, 186). It is most improbable that 
an urgent meeting was held which has left no traces in our sources. 
If an ecclesia took place, it must have been an ordinary meeting held 
on one of the last days of Elaphebolion. 

Demosthenes emphasizes in 19.150-54 that he pressed on and tried 
to persuade the other envoys to set out immediately after Philip's 
envoys had administered the oaths and left Athens on Elaph. 25. His 
account implies that no meeting of the assembly took place after 
Elaph. 25, and conversely, if we assume the existence of a meeting 
during this period, we must suppose that Demosthenes distorted the 
facts and cunningly passed over this meeting in silence. Now on this 
point Demosthenes' account is confirmed by Aeschines' description 
of the same events (2.89-92). He discredits Demosthenes' efforts to 

secure rapid action, and he mentions neither that the decree passed 
on Moun. 3 demanded immediate dispatch nor that it was proposed 
by Demosthenes. If Demosthenes had allowed a meeting of the as­
sembly to pass without addressing the people and without demanding 
rapid action, Aeschines would undoubtedly have pointed it out to the 
jurors in order to take the sting out of Demosthenes' charge that the 
other envoys had deliberately postponed the departure of the 
embassy to Philip. Thus we may safely assume that no meeting took 
place after Elaph. 25. 

F. Was the year 347/6 an ordinary year or an intercalary year? In our 
sources the dates of the ecclesiai are given in terms of the civil calendar, 
whereas the people were summoned by the prytaneis in accordance 
with the conciliar year. Consequently, all references given by 
Aeschines and Demosthenes to meetings held during Elaphebolion 
and Mounichion must be translated into days of the prytany. Since 
in the fourth century the conciliar year was of equal length with the 
festival year and since both began on the same day, such a conversion 
is perfectly possible if we have one piece of evidence at our disposal: 



62 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

was the year 347/6 an ordinary year of 354 days with prytanies of 36 
and 35 days, or was it an intercalary year of 384 days with prytanies of 
39 and 38 days? We have some evidence bearing on this problem, 
but-as usual-the sources are too scanty to afford a decision. 

1. On average, every third year was an intercalary year. We know 
that 34615 was an ordinary year (Meritt 72-73), and consequently the 
chances for 347/6 are even. 

2. As discussed above, the decree IG U2 212 includes a reference to 
the ecclesia held on Elaph. 18. The decision to summon an ecclesia on 
Elaph. 18 was made during the ecclesia held on Elaph. 8. Accordingly, 
IG 112 212 must have been passed either on Elaph. 8 or on Elaph. 16. 
In the preamble to the decree it is stated that it was passed during 
Pryt. viii. In an ordinary year the equations of Elaph. 8 and 16 are 
Pryt. vii,30 and viii,3, whereas in an intercalary year the same equa­
tions are Pryt. viii,4 and 12. If IG 112 212 was passed on Elaph. 8, the 
year 347/6 must have been an intercalary year; but since honorific 
decrees were often passed at the ecclesia held after the Greater Diony­
sia (IG 112 345, 346, 347, 348; Hesperia 8 [1939] 26-27 no.6), we cannot 
preclude the possibility that IG 112212 was passed two days before the 
ecclesia on Elaph. 18, viZ. during the meeting of the assembly held in 
the Theatre of Dionysos (pace Lewis p.25). 

So we cannot decide whether 347/6 was an ordinary year or an 
intercalary year, and in our reconstruction of the equations between 
the festival year and the conciliar year we must take both possibilities 
into account.12 

ORDINARY YEAR 

Day Conciliar Festival Event 
Calendar Calendar 

237 Pryt. vii,23 Elaph.1 
238 24 2 
239 25 3 

12 My chronological tables are based on the following assumptions: ORDINARY YEAR: 

Pryt. i-iv are of 36 days and Pryt. v-x of 35 days each. The eight months Hecatombaion to 
Anthesterion amount to 236 days (4x 30+ 4x 29). Ex.: Hesperia 7 (1938) 476-79 no.31: 
Elaph. 12= Pryt. vii.34= 248th day (Meritt 122). INTERCALARY YEAR: Pryt. i-iv are of 39 and 
Pryt. v-x of 38 days each. The month repeated is Poseideon II. The nine months Hecatom­
baion to Anthesterion amount to 266 days (5X 30+4x 29). Ex.: IG III 336b: Elaph. 30=Pryt. 
viii.26= 296th day (Meritt 119). Since the Athenians allowed slight deviations from this 
standard scheme, my equations (Pryt. viii.1=Elaph. 14 in an ordinary year and Elaph. 5 
in an intercalary year) may be wrong by one or at most two days in either direction. But 
this inaccuracy is of no consequence for my argument since it does not affect the dis­
tribution of assemblies in Pryt. vii and Pryt. viii. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 63 

Day Conciliar Festival Event 
Calendar Calendar 

240 26 4 
241 27 

H 242 28 Report to the Council Elaph. 5-7 
243 29 

244 30 8 ecclesia Elaph. 8 
245 31 9 
246 32 10 Dionysia 
247 33 11 Dionysia 
248 34 12 Dionysia 
249 35 13 Dionysia 
250 Pryt. viii,1 14 Dionysia 
251 2 15 Pandia? 
252 3 16 ecclesia Elaph. 16 
253 4 17 
254 5 18 ecclesia Elaph. 18 
255 6 19 ecclesia Elaph. 19 
256 7 20 
257 8 21 
258 9 22 ecclesia Elaph. 20-24 (??) 
259 10 23 
260 11 24 
261 12 25 ecclesia Elaph. 2513 

262 13 26 
263 14 27 
264 15 28 
265 16 29 
266 17 30 1 
267 18 Moun. 1 2 
268 19 2 

3} decree of the Council Moun. 3 269 20 3 

INTERCALARY YEAR 

Day Conciliar Festival Event 
Calendar Calendar 

267 Pryt. vii,35 Elaph.l 
268 36 2 
269 37 3 

13 Following Pritchett and Neugebauer (31), I hold that EKrYJ </>8{VOV'TOC is the 25th day of 
the month both in hollow and in full months. Those who accept Meritt's reconstruction 
(45) must admit that this meeting was held on Elaph. 24 if Elaph. was a hollow month. 



64 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

270 

27l 
272 

273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 

291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 

Conciliar 
Calendar 

38 

Pryt. viii,l 
2 
3 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Festival 
Calendar 

4 

n 
8 
9 
10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 1 

Moun. 1 2 
2 

3} 
3 

Report to the Council Elaph. 5_714 

ecclesia Elaph. 8 

Dionysia 
Dionysia 
Dionysia 
Dionysia 
Dionysia 
Pandia 
ecclesia Elaph. 16 

ecclesia Elaph. 18 
ecclesia Elaph. 19 

ecclesia Elaph. 20-24 (??) 

ecclesia Elaph. 25 

decree of the Council Moun. 3 

14 In Note A on p.56 I suggested that Aeschin. 2.47-54 and 3.67~8 referred to one and 
the same meeting of the assembly, held on Elaph. 8. Even accepting the traditional view 
and assuming the existence of two ecclesiai in the beginning of Elaphebolion, we cannot 
place the other ecclesia later than Elaph. 4-5: Elaph. 8: ecclesia (Aeschin. 3.67~8). Elaph. 7: 
arrival of Philip's envoys (Aeschin. 3.68). Elaph. 6: Demosthenes' decree onproedria passed 
before the arrival of Philip's envoys (Aeschin. 2.55). Elaph. 4-5: ecclesia, the Athenian 
envoys' report to the people (Aeschin. 2.47-54). It is not attested and improbable that an 
assembly was held on the first day of a prytany and, moreover, the equation of Elaph. 5 
in an intercalary year is Pryt. viii.l only on the assumption that five of the first nine months 
were of 30 days. If the distribution is 4x 30+ 5x 29 the equation of Elaph. 5 is Pryt. vii.38. 
Consequently, the assembly held on Elaph. 8 must, on any theory, be the first ecclesia held 
in Pryt. viii. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 65 

The number of ecclesiai held in 347/6, Prytany viii 

We can now form an opinion of how many ecclesiai the Athenians 
held in 347/6, Pryt. viii. We must keep in mind, however, that our 
reconstruction is subject to certain reservations since three questions 
were left unanswered. It was impossible to decide (a) whether the year 

347/6 was an ordinary year or an intercalary year, (b) whether the 
ecclesiai held on Elaph. 18 and 19 rated as one or two meetings of the 
assembly, and (c) whether the envoys were appointed at the assembly 
held on Elaph. 19 or at a special meeting convened on one of the days 
Elaph. 20-24. Accordingly, no simple conclu'sion can be drawn, and 
we are left with 23 = 8 solutions to our problem. A clearer picture 
emerges if we tabulate the possibilities: 

ecclesia on Elaph. 20-24 no ecclesia on Elaph. 20-24 

INTERCALARY 1. Elaph.8 1. Elaph.8 1. Elaph.8 1. Elaph.8 
YEAR 2. Elaph. 16 2. Elaph. 16 2. Elaph. 16 2. Elaph.16 

3. Elaph.18 3. Elaph. 18-19 3. Elaph. 18 3. Elaph. 18-19 
4. Elaph. 19 4. Elaph. ca 22 4. Elaph. 19 4. Elaph.25 
5. Elaph. ca 22 5. Elaph.25 5. Elaph.25 
6. Elaph.25 

ORDINARY 1. Elaph. 16 1. Elaph. 16 1. Elaph. 16 1. Elaph. 16 
YEAR 2. Elaph. 18 2. Elaph. 18-19 2. Elaph. 18 2. Elaph. 18-19 

3. Elaph. 19 3. Elaph. ca 22 3. Elaph. 19 3. Elaph.25 
4. Elaph. ca 22 4. Elaph.25 4. Elaph.25 
5. Elaph.25 

Elaph. 18-19 Elaph. 18-19 Elaph. 18-19 Elaph. 18-19 
= 2 ecclesiai = 1 ecclesia = 2 ecclesiai = 1 ecclesia 

On the basis of this table we may return.to the two sources which 
are central for a proper understanding of what an EKKA7]cta cVYKA7]TOC 

is, viZ. Dem. 19.154 and Aeschin. 2.72. The accepted view is that the 
Athenians summoned extraordinary meetings of the ecclesia when­
ever required in addition to the four ordinary meetings. Accordingly 
the usual interpretation of these two passages is that no ordinary 
meeting was left at the beginning of Mounichion 346 (Oem. 19.154) 



66 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

and that the number of extraordinary meetings exceeded the four 
ordinary meetings which could be summoned in the course of a 
prytany (Aeschin. 2.72). This interpretation, however, is disproved 
by the table. (a) It is impossible to find room for four ordinary meet­
ings during Pryt. viii, and (b) it is impossible to find room for a number 
of extraordinary meetings exceeding the four ordinary meetings. 

(a) Since the meetings held on Elaph. 8, 18 and 19 were €KKATjcla, 
cVyKATjTO' (see p.4S), our sources provide us with information of only 
one or two ordinary meetings, viz:. the ecclesia held on Elaph. 16 and 
presumably the meeting held on Elaph. 25, which may have been an 
ordinary meeting. Even if we assume the existence of an ecclesia for 
the election of the envoys held during the period Elaph. 20-24 we can 
only reach a total of three ordinary meetings, and it is impossible to 
find room for the fourth meeting before Moun. 3, when, according 
to Demosthenes, no more meetings of the assembly were left. 

(b) Let us for a moment assume that Aeschines and Demosthenes 
have omitted at least one ordinary meeting from their account. 
Accepting a special meeting for the election of the envoys we must 
now place one more ordinary meeting in the period Elaph. 20-24 or 
in the period Elaph. 26-30. On this assumption we can muster a total 
of seven meetings held during Pryt. viii, four ordinary and three 
extraordinary meetings. But this reconstruction is incompatible with 
Aeschines' information that the number of €KKATjcla, CVyKATjTO' 
exceeded the number of ordinary meetings. If we will maintain the 
. traditional definition of €KKATjcLa cVYKATjTOC, we must postulate the 
existence not only of one more ordinary meeting in addition to the 
doubtful electoral assembly but also of at least two more extra­
ordinary meetings which have left no traces whatsoever in our 
sources. It is quite impossible that three or more meetings are passed 
over in silence by Demosthenes and Aeschines in their detailed 
accounts of this central period, and consequently the accepted 
definition of the term €KKATjcLa cVYKATjTOC must be abandoned. Oem. 
19.154 must mean that no meeting of the assembly, neither ordinary 
nor extraordinary, was left when Demosthenes moved his decree in 
the Council, and Aeschin. 2.72 must be taken to mean that three out 
of the four assemblies held during Pryt. viii were CVYKATjTO' , and only 
one ecclesia was summoned as an ordinary meeting. Accepting this 
interpretatioll we are left with three out of the eight possibilities 
tabulated above: 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 67 

INTERCALARY YEAR ORDINARY YEAR 

Elph. 8 S Elaph. 16 0 Elaph. 16 S 
Elaph. 16 0 Elaph. 18-19 S Elaph. 18 S 

Elaph. 18-19 S Elaph. ca 22 S Elaph. 19 S 

Elaph.25 S Elaph. 25 S Elaph. 25 S 

0= ordinary meeting 

Conclusion 

The conclusion of this investigation is that the Athenians convened 
a maximum of four assemblies during a prytany, and that each of 
these ecclesiai was an ordinary meeting if it was summoned by the 
prytaneis at their own initiative and at four days' notice, whereas the 
meeting was an EKKATJda cVYKATJTOC if it was summoned at short 
notice in an emergency or prescribed by a decree passed in a previous 
meeting. But this conclusion is valid only for the second half of the 
fourth century. The sources indicate that, during the period of twelve 
phylae, EKKATJclaL cVYKATJTOL may have been summoned in addition 
to the three ordinary meetings summoned every month, whereas 
in the first part of the century there was no restriction on the number 
of ecclesiai. 

The period after 307/6 

If we trust the information given by scholiasts and lexicographers, 
we must assume that EKKATJclaL cVYKATJTOL in the sense of additional 
meetings were introduced in connection with the phylae reform of 
307/6, and this part of the reform can easily be explained: a change 
from ten prytanies (and four ecclesiai summoned during each prytany) 
to twelve prytanies (and three ecclesiai summoned in a prytany) 
resulted in a reduction of the number of ecclesiai from forty to thirty­
six during a year. It is a reasonable guess that some EKKATJdaL cVYKATJTOL 

could now be summoned as additional meetings in order to make up 
the difference. On this theory, the only serious mistake made by the 
scholiasts and lexicographers is that they mix up the democratic 
constitution before 322 with the conditions valid for the period of 
twelve phylae after 307/6. 



68 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

The period 403-355 
~ 

The most important sources for the first part of the century are the 
numerous eisangeliai which could be heard either by the court or by 
the assembly.15 A survey of all known eisangeliai from 493 to 324 shows 
that the assembly usually referred an eisangelia to a OtK<XCT1]PWV and 
only exceptionally took it upon itself to act as a law court. We know 
of eleven eisangeliai heard by the assembly, however, and eight of 
these can be dated within the period 389-362.16 The last examples of 
eisangeliai having been heard by the assembly are the trials of Callis­
thenes and Ergophilus in 362. All later eisangeliai were apparently 
brought before the jurors. From this evidence Thalheim and especially 
Lipsius concluded that some time in the middle of the fourth century 
the v6p.oc €ic<xyy€AnK6, was amended in such a way that henceforth 
the 8LK<XC7"~PWV was the only body empowered to pass a sentence in 
an eisangelia initiated in the assembly (cf Hansen, Eisangelia 53). 

A closer examination of all known eisangeliai shows that this con­
clusion is legitimate. Including all possible examples of eisangeliai to 
the assembly from the period 403 to 324 and organizing them in two 
groups with the year 362/1 as our point of division, we get the follow­
ing figures. A. 403-362: eight eisangeliai were heard by the assembly 
and four by the court. (In eleven cases it is unknown whether the 
trial took place before the people or before the jurors.) B. 361-324: 
twenty-seven eisangeliai were heard by the court and not a single one 
by the assembly. In four cases the eisangelia was withdrawn before the 
trial, and in two cases we do not know whether the trial took place. 
In seven more cases we have no evidence that the case was heard by 
the court. 

The total absence of eisangeliai heard by the assembly after 362 is 
remarkable when compared with the high number of eisangeliai 
brought before the jurors, and it is even more significant when con­
trasted with the frequent examples of the assembly acting as a law­
court in the preceding decades. Summing up, we may conclude that 
an important change in the administration of justice must have taken 
place shortly after 362. 

16 For the follOWing cf Hansen, Eisangelia 51-57 (Eisangelia, the Assembly and the 
Popular Court) and 66-120 (Catalogue of Known Eisangeliai). 

16 Eisangelia, Catalogue Nos. 2 Miltiades 489, 3 Hipparchus 480-60, 66 the generals 406. 
73 Ergocles 389,75 Thrasybulus 387, 76 Thrasybulus 382, 80 Timotheus 373, 81 Antimachus 
373,82 Timagoras 367, 85 Callisthenes 362, 86 Ergophilus 362. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 69 

Eisangelia was a public action, and the hearing of a public action 
occupied a whole day from sunrise to sunset (Xen. Hell. 1.7.28; Arist. 
Ath.Pol. 67; Aeschin. 3.197; cf Busolt 1161). Thus it was impossible to 

place the trial on the agenda of one of the four ecclesiai which, accord­
ing to Aristotle, could be surruTIoned during a prytany. The conclusion 

is that the fixed agenda described by Aristotle for all the four meetings 
was not introduced until after the hearing of eisangeliai had been 
transferred from the assembly to the court. Similarly, a limitation of 
the number of assemblies is incompatible with the frequency of 
eisangeliai heard by the people.17 Forty meetings would not have 
sufficed if several of them were reserved for the hearing of a political 
process. 

The period 355-22 

The amendment of the vop.oc dcaYYEtI'TLKOC can be dated within the 
period 362-54. The limitation put on the number of ecclesiai is attested 
for the year 347/6. These two measures were probably part of the 
same reform. The sources provide us with no information as to the 
purpose of this reform, but it was undoubtedly introduced pardy for 
economic and partly for political reasons. For attendance at the 
EKKt.'T)cla Kvp{a an Athenian citizen received nine obols, whereas for 
attendance at all other assemblies the fee was one drachma. Against 
this the jurors had only three obols per session. These figures are 
given by Aristotle (Ath.Pol. 62.2) writing ca 325. On the reasonable 
assumption that the same figures apply to the period ca 350 and that 
a session of the assembly was attended by ca 6000 citizens (~f Hansen, 
GRBS 17 [1976J 129-30), the cost of an eisangelia was one talent if heard 
by the assembly, against only 250 dr. if heard by a court manned by 
500 jurors. Since the Athenian state was bankrupt after the Social 
War, a law restricting the number of assemblies would be a con­
venient measure to save money. According to Aristotle democracy 
was the most costly of all constitutions, and radical democracy even 
more than other types of democracy. The reform adopted by the 
Athenians in the middle of the fourth century is almost identical 

17 0 or;I'OC is the usual designation for the assembl y acting as a law-court, e.g., • AVTll'cxxov ••• 

KplvcxvT£c £V Tep o~p.<p a1TEKT€lVCXTE (Dem. 49.10). Furthermore, Xenophon states at Hell. 
1.7.9 that such a meeting was an ecclesia: £VTEfJ(hv £KK>'T]ctCXV £1TO{OVV, Eic ~v ~ f3ov>'TJ Elc~v£YK£ 
T~V (aVTr;C yvwp.T]v Ka>.>.tf'vov £l1TOVTOC T~VO£. Admittedly the trial of the generals in 406 was 
handled unconstitutionally, but it is important to notice that Callixenus' opponent 
Euryptolemus does not raise any objection against the ecclesia acting as a law-court. 



70 HOW OFTEN DID THE ECCLESIA MEET? 

with one of the remedies proposed by Aristotle (Pol. 1320a22ff) in 
order to change a radical democracy into a moderate one: 07TOV I-'ev 

.,. I ~ \ I .,. ~ A A >,\ I >,\ I \ OVV 7TpOCOUO£ 1-'7] 'Tvyxavove£v ovea,. UH 7TO'E'V ° ,yae EKK 7]oac Kat 

S£KaC'T1}p,a 7TO'\'\WV I-'ev oMyac Se ~I-"pae. When revenues run short the 
constitution may be modified by cutting down the number of ecclesiai 
and by instructing the courts to hear many cases in a few sessions. 18 

This line of argument suggests that the Athenians passed the two 
intimately connected reforms in the year 355, after the end of the 
Social War. During the period 355-322 no more than forty meetings 
of the assembly could be summoned during a year, and in the same 
period all eisangeliai were heard by the people's court and the 
assembly deprived of all power to act as a law court. 

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 

November, 1976 

18 1I'oAAwJI is usually interpreted as masculine. but in my opinion the passage gives 
much better sense if the adjective is neuter. Cf Arist. Ath. Pol. 67.1. stating that a panel 
of jurors during a session lasting one day had to hear no less than four cases.