GEROU´SIA
GEROU´SIA (
γερουσία),
the council of elders (
γέροντες), was the
name of the Senate in most Doric states, and was especially used to signify
the Senate at Sparta. In connexion with this subject it is proposed to give
a general view of the Spartan constitution, and to explain the functions of
its legislative and administrative elements. In the later ages of Spartan
history one of the most prominent of these was the college of the five
ephors; but as an account of the Ephoralty is given in a separate article
[
EPHORI], we shall confine
our inquiries to the kings, the
γέροντες or
councillors, and the
ἐκκλησία or assembly
of Spartan freemen.
I.
The Kings. The kingly authority at Sparta was, as it is
well known, coeval with the settlement of the Dorians in the Peloponnesus,
and confined to the descendants of Aristodemus, one of the Heracleid
leaders, under whom, according to the Spartan legend, the conquest of
Laconia was achieved. To him were born twin sons, Eurysthenes and Procles;
and from this cause arose the divided royalty, the sovereignty being always
shared by the representatives of the two families which claimed descent from
them (
Hdt. 6.52). A purely formal precedence,
involving no substantial inequality of power, was granted to the elder
branch, known as the house of the Agiadae or Agidae (the former is more
correct: Schömann, p. 225 n.), from Agis son of Eurysthenes; while
the other was styled that of the Eurypontidae from Eurypon, a grandson of
Procles. Such was the national legend; but the notion that both kings were
Heracleids finds little favour from recent criticism (cf. Thumser, p. 158,
n. 9). It is more likely that the second house represented another family;
and that of the Theban Aegidae, who are believed on other grounds to have
taken part in the
συνοικισμὸς or Dorian
conquest of Sparta, is by far the most probable. The burial-places of the
two royal families were in quite different quarters of the city of Sparta
(
Paus. 3.12.8;
14.2); there was a traditional rivalry between them, and they appear
never to have intermarried with one another. The double royalty no doubt
originated in some circumstances of the earliest times which have not come
down to us: that it was the result of a deliberate plan, on the part of the
nobles, for weakening the kingly authority by dividing it, is not likely,
though such a feeling may have tended to keep up the institution when once
established.
The monarchy passed by hereditary descent, not unconditionally to the eldest
son, but to the one who was born first during the reign of his father (
Hdt. 7.3), and whose mother was of genuine Spartan
descent. Marriages with foreigners were interdicted on political grounds;
the kings were not to strengthen themselves at the expense of the
constitution by means of union with other leading families. If no sons were
born, or if the heir to the crown were incapacitated through some serious
bodily defect, the nearest agnate succeeded; he it was, also, who acted as
guardian and regent (
πρόδικος) during a
minority. Some of the most famous Spartan careers, for instance those of
Lycurgus the legislator and Pausanias the victor at Plataea, arose out of
this office of
πρόδικος.
The requirement that the kings should be free from bodily defects was a
necessary consequence of their priestly character. It was their duty either
to perform in person, or to superintend,
[p. 1.913]all the
public sacrifices offered on behalf of the state; while in addition to this
they held two special priesthoods, those of Zeus Uranius and Zeus Lacedaemon
(
Hdt. 6.56). For the support of the royal
dignity, and of the hospitalities which it involved, public or domain lands
were assigned to them in the districts of the perioeci, or provincial
subjects, and certain perquisites belonged to them whenever any animal was
slain in sacrifice. Besides this, the kings were entitled to various
payments in kind (
πασῶν τῶν σνῶν ἀπὸ τόκου
χοῖρον), that they might never be in want of victims to
sacrifice; in addition to which they received, twice a month from the state,
a
ἱρήϊον τέλειον, to be offered as a
sacrifice to Apollo, and then served up at the royal table. Whenever also
any of the citizens made a public sacrifice to the gods, the kings were
invited to the feast, and honoured above the other guests: a double portion
of food was given to them, and they commenced the libations to the gods
(
Hdt. 6.57). All these distinctions are of a
simple and antiquated character, and, so far as they go, prove that the
Spartan sovereignty was a continuation of the heroic or Homeric. The
distinctions and privileges granted to the king as commander of the forces
in war, lead to the same conclusion. These were greater than he enjoyed at
home. He was guarded by a body of at least 100 chosen men, more usually 300
(
Hdt. 1.67;
Thuc.
5.72); and his table was maintained at the public expense: he might
sacrifice in his sacerdotal capacity as many victims as he chose, the skins
and chines of which were his perquisites; and he was assisted by so many
subordinate officers that he had nothing else to do, except to act as priest
and strategus. (
Xen. de Rep.
Lac. 13, 15;
Hdt. 6.55.)
On the death of a Spartan king the funeral solemnities were celebrated by the
whole community. The markets were closed for three days, and all public
business was suspended for ten: horsemen went round the country to carry the
tidings, and a fixed number of the perioeci, or provincials, were obliged to
come from all parts of the country to the city, where, with the Spartans and
Helots and their wives, to the number of many thousands, they made loud
lamentations, and proclaimed the virtues of the deceased king as superior to
those of all his predecessors. (Herod.
l.c.) At the
end of the ten days mourning was changed into festivity, and the accession
of the new king was celebrated: the occasion was signalised by the remission
of all debts due from private individuals to the state or the king; the
words of Herodotus (
ὁ ἐσιὼν ἐλευθεροῖ,
6.59) suggest that they were not cancelled, but paid by the new monarch as
largesse.
In comparison with their dignity and honours, the constitutional powers of
the kings were very limited. Their official title seems to have been, not
βασιλεῖς, but
ἀρχαγέται and
βαγοί: the
former indicating their presidency of the senate (
γερουσίαν σὺν ἀρχαγέταις καταστήσαντα, Rhetra ap.
Plut. Lyc. 6), the latter probably from
ἄγω with the digamma (
βαγὸσ--καὶ βασιλεὺς καὶ στρατηγός Λάκωνες, Hesych.;
cf. Boeckh on
C. I. G 1.83).
In the
γερουσία, it is probable, their votes
counted for no more than those of any other senator; when absent, their
place was supplied and their proxies tendered by the councillors who were
most nearly related to them, and therefore of a Heracleid family. The
presidency of that body was lodged either in the king of the elder house
(Thirlwall, 1.319) or, as with the Roman consuls, in the two kings
alternately (Schömann,
Antiq. 1.233, E. T.): the
latter supposition is more in accordance with the substantial equality of
the royal houses. Herodotus (
6.57) states that
they each had two votes, but this is denied by Thucydides (
1.20); when the votes were equally divided, the
president may have had a casting vote, in which case his vote counted as
two. The expression of Thucydides,
προστίθεσθαι μιθ̂
Ψήφψ, implies that the kings voted last, which was no doubt
the case with the president (Schömann,
l.c.). Among other prerogatives they had the right of convoking and
addressing the public assembly; they appointed the
Πύθιοι [
PYTHII]
and the
πρόξενοι [
HOSPITIUM], the latter an
important office in a state so jealous of foreigners as Sparta. Their
judicial powers were by no means extensive; they tried suits respecting the
maintenance of the public roads or the disposal of heiresses (
πατροῦχοι, ἐπιπάμονες: cf.
EPICLERUS p. 748
a); and adoptions took place in their presence. It
was only in war that the kings still retained many attributes of the heroic
monarchy. In old times they had the right to declare war upon whom they
pleased, and any one who hindered them was laid under a curse (
Hdt. 6.56); this, however, is not said of the
single king, but of the two in joint command (
ἐπ̓
ἣν ἂν βούλωνται χώρην), and in Xenophon's time it is
στρατιὰν ὅποι ἡ πόλις ἐκπέμπῃ
ἡγεῖσθαι (cf.
Hellen. 3.4.3;
4.7.2). After the quarrel between Cleomenes and Demaratus (B.C. 506), a law
was passed that for the future one only of the two kings should have the
command of the army on foreign expeditions. When they had once crossed the
borders of Laconia, in command of troops, their authority became unlimited,
except as to capital punishment (
Aristot.
Pol. 3.9 == p. 1285, 7). They could send out and assemble armies,
despatch ambassadors to collect money, and refer those who applied to
themselves for justice to the proper officers appointed for that purpose.
(
Xen. de Rep. Lac.
13;
Thuc. 5.60,
8.5.) Two ephors, indeed, accompanied the kings on their
expeditions, but those magistrates had no authority to interfere with the
king's operations: they simply watched over the proceedings of the army.
(Xen.
l.c.) Moreover, there can be no doubt that the
kings were, on their return home, accountable for their conduct as generals
(
Thuc. 5.63), and more especially after the
increase of the ephoral authority. Their military power also was not
connected with any political functions, for the kings were not allowed to
conclude treaties or to decide the fate of cities, without communicating
with the authorities at home. (
Xen. Hell.
2.2, § 12; 5.3.24.)
II.
The
γερουσία,
or Council of Elders. This body was the aristocratic element
of the Spartan polity, and not peculiar to Sparta only, but found, as has
been already observed, in other Dorian states, just as a
βουλὴ or den<*>ocratical council
was an element of most Ionian constitutions.
[p. 1.914]
The
γερουσία at Sparta, called in the local
dialect
γεροντία, γερωχία, and perhaps
γερωΐα (Schömann, p. 230;
Gilbert, p. 51; Thumser, p. 155), consisted of twenty-eight members,
exclusive of the two kings, its presidents. Plutarch (
Plut. Lyc. 5) gives various explanations of this number; his
own, which has been generally followed in modern times, is that, with the
kings, the number thirty was made up. Hence it has been very generally
supposed that each of the thirty Obae (
ὠβαὶ) into which the people were divided was represented by one
of the Gerontes (Müller,
Dor. 3.5,
§ § 3, 8). But the evidence for the number of thirty Obae
is very insufficient, and it is now admitted that the connexion between them
and the Gerousia is, to say the least, extremely doubtful. Like every Dorian
state, Sparta was divided into the three genealogical tribes (
φυλαὶ γενικαί: cf.
DEMUS p. 615
a) of
Ὑλλεῖς, Δυμᾶνες, and
Πάμφυλοι, whence the Dorians are called
τριχάϊκες, or thrice divided (
Od. 19.177). But it is now agreed that there
was another division of the Spartans into local tribes (
φυλαὶ τοπικαί), the number of which is unknown,
but was perhaps five, corresponding to the five
κῶμαι or villages which made up the city of Sparta, and named,
as there is good reason to think,
Πιτάνη, Λίμναι,
Μεσσόα, Κυνόσουρα, and
Δύμη (Thumser, p. 165 n.). The Obae were subdivisions of these
local tribes, not of the three hereditary ones; their number and exact
nature are unlike unknown, and any definite conclusions on this point must
await further evidence from inscriptions (Gilbert, p. 44). Schömann
(p. 231) has well pointed out that it is hard to believe that the kings, who
ranked as members of one gens, the Heracleidae, can have represented two
different Obae; or again, that so obvious a circumstance as the
representation of the Obae in the Gerousia, if it really existed, could have
remained so completely concealed from the ancients, and especially from
Aristotle. Thumser (p. 165) has in our opinion treated these objections much
too lightly.
No one was eligible to the Gerousia till he was sixty years of age (
Plut. Lyc. 26), and the additional
qualifications were strictly of an aristocratic nature. We are told, for
instance, that the office of a councillor was the reward and prize of virtue
(
Aristot. Pol. 2.9 == p. 1270 b,
24; Demosth.
c. Lcpt. p. 489.107), and that it was confined
to men of distinguished character and station (
καλοὶ
κἀγαθοί). The election was determined by vote, and the mode
of conducting it was remarkable for its old-fashioned simplicity. The
competitors presented themselves one after another to the assembly of
electors (
Plut. Lyc. 26); the latter
testified their esteem by acclamations, which varied in intensity according
to the popularity of the candidates for whom they were given. These
manifestations of esteem were noted by persons in an adjoining building, who
could judge of the shouting, but could not tell in whose favour it was
given. The person whom these judges thought to have been most applauded was
declared the successful candidate. Aristotle calls this mode of election
childish (
παιδαριώδης,
l.c. line 28); and further denounces it because the
candidates came forward of their own motion, whereas the best men ought to
have been elected even against their will (p. 1271, 10). The office of a
councillor was not only for life, but also irresponsible (p. 1271, 15), as
if a previous reputation, and the near approach of death, were considered a
sufficient guarantee for integrity and moderation. But the councillors did
not always prove so, for Aristotle (
l.c.) tells us
that the members of the
γερουσία received
bribes, and frequently showed partiality in their decisions.
The functions of the councillors were partly deliberative, partly judicial,
and partly executive. In the discharge of the first they prepared measures
and passed preliminary decrees (
Plut. Agis
11) which were to be laid before the popular assembly, so that the
important privilege of initiating all changes in the government or laws was
vested in them. As a criminal court they could punish with death and civil
degradation (
ἀτιμία,
Xen. Rep. Lac. 10,
§ 2;
Aristot. Pol. 3.1 == p.
1275 b, 10), and that too without being restrained by any code of written
laws, for which national feeling and recognised usages would form a
sufficient substitute. They also appear to have exercised, like the
Areiopagus at Athens, a general superintendence and inspection over the
lives and manners of the citizens (
arbitri et magistri
disciplinae publicae, Aul.
Gel.
18.3), and probably were allowed “a kind of patriarchal
authority to enforce the observance of ancient usage and
discipline.” (Thirlwall,
Hist. of Greece, vol. i. p.
318.) It is not, however, easy to define with exactness the original extent
of their functions ; especially as respects the last-mentioned duty, since
the ephors not only encroached upon the prerogatives of the king and
council, but also possessed, in very early times, a censorial power, and
were not likely to permit any diminution of its extent.
III.
The
ἐκκλησία,
or Assembly of Spartan Freemen. This assembly possessed, in
theory at least, the supreme authority in all matters affecting the general
interests of the state. Its original position at Sparta is shortly explained
by a rhetra or ordinance of Lycurgus, which, in the form of an oracle,
exhibits the principal features of the Spartan polity:--“Build a
temple,” says the Pythian god, “to Hellanian Zeus and
Hellanian Athena; divide the tribes, and institute thirty obas; appoint
a council with its princes; call an assembly between Babyca and Knakion,
then make a motion and depart; and let there be a right of decision and
power to the people:” thus translated in Müller,
Dor. 3.5.8. The Greek of this
ῥήτρα is highly curious, and involves some
critical points:
Διὸς Ἑλλανίου καὶ Ἀθανᾶς
Ἑλλανίας [Συλλανίου . . . Συλλανίας, Sintenis; other
conjectures in Thumser, p. 110, n. 4]
ἱερὸν
ἱδρυσάμενον, φυλὰς φυλάξαντα καὶ ὠβὰς ὠβάξαντα [τριάκοντα]
γερουσίαν σὺν ἀρχαγέταις καταστήσαντα, ὥρας <*>᾿ξ
ὥρας ἀπελλάζ<*>ιν μεταξὺ Βαβύκας τε καὶ
Κνακιῶνος, οὕτως <*>ἰσφέρειν τε καὶ
ὀ<*>ίστασθαι:
δάμῳ δὲ
τὰν κυρίαν ἦμεν καὶ κράτος (ap.
Plut. Lyc. 6). The technical terms are then explained by
Plutarch :
ἐν τούτοις τὸ μὲν φυλὰς φυλάξαι καὶ
ὠβὰς ὠβάξαι, διελεῖν ἐστι καὶ κατανεῖμαι τὸ
πλῆ<*>ος εἰς μερίδας, ὧν τὰς μὲν φυλὰς, τὰς
δ<*>` ὠβ<*> προσηγόρ<*>υκεν.
Ἀρχαγέται δὲ οἱ βασιλεῖς λ<*>´γονται, τὸ δὲ
ἀπελλάζειν, ἐκκλησίαζειν. The word
τριάκοντα is commonly (as by Müller) joined to
ὠβάς, and
[p. 1.915]this is the only evidence for the number of thirty obae (see above);
Sintenis places a comma after
ὠβάξαντα,
and joins
τριάκοντα γερουσίαν σὺν
ἀρχαγέταις, an awkward expression which is not likely to have
been used in a law; Curtius and others with good reason reject the word as a
gloss (Thumser, p. 166, n. 3). On the name
ἀπέλλα, and the probable meaning of the phrase “between
Babyca and Knakion,” see under
ECCLETI and cf. SPARTA in
Dict. Geogr.
ii. 1029 a; the text of Plutarch is here
defective. The phrase
ὥρας ἐξ ὥρας,
given up by Müller as unintelligible, is now explained of a monthly
meeting, “from full moon to full moon,” on the authority of the
Schol. to
Thuc. 1.67. On occasions of emergency,
extraordinary meetings were convened by the kings and, in later times, by
the ephors also (
Hdt. 7.134).
By this ordinance full power was given to the people to adopt or reject
whatever was proposed to them by the king and other magistrates. It was,
however, found necessary to define this power more exactly, and the
following clause, ascribed to the kings Theopompus and Polydorus, was added
to the original rhetra: “but if the people should follow a crooked
opinion the elders and the princes shall withdraw” (
αἰ δὲ σκολιὰν ὁ δᾶμος ἑλοιτο τοὺς πρεσβυγενέας καὶ
ἀρχαγέτας ἀποστατῆρας ἦμεν). Plutarch (
l.c.) interprets these words to mean, “That in
case the people does not either reject or approve
in
toto a measure proposed to them, the kings and councillors
should dissolve the assembly, and declare the proposed decree to be
invalid.” With
σκολιὰν Plutarch
supplies
γνώμην, but probably the word
should be
ῥήτραν: we read in Tyrtaeus
εὐθείαις ρνώμαις ἀνταπαμειβομένους.
According to this interpretation, which is confirmed by some verses in the
Eunomia of Tyrtaeus, the assembly was not competent to originate any
measures, but only to pass or reject, without modification, the laws and
decrees proposed by the proper authorities: a limitation of its power, which
almost determined the character of the Spartan constitution, and justifies
the words of Demosthenes, who observes (
c. Lept. p. 489.107),
that the
γερουσία at Sparta was in many
respects supreme--
Δεσπότης ἐστὶ τῶν
πολλῶν. All citizens above the age of thirty who were not
labouring under any loss of franchise were admissible to the general
assembly or
ἀπέλλα: but no one except
public magistrates, and chiefly the ephors and kings, addressed the people
without being specially called upon. (Müller,
Dor. 3.4.11.) The same public functionaries also put the
question to the vote, and the method of voting was by acclamation. (
Thuc. 1.80,
87.)
Hence, as the magistrates only (
τὰ τέλη or
οἱ ἐν τέλει) were the leaders and
speakers of the assembly, decrees of the whole people are often spoken of as
the decision of the authorities only, especially in matters relating to
foreign affairs. The intimate connexion of the ephors with the assembly is
shown by a phrase of very frequent occurrence in decrees (
ἔδοξε τοῖς ἐφόροις καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ).
An attempt has been made to distinguish between the phrases
οἱ ἐν τέλει and
τὰ
τέλη: they probably refer to the same persons, according as
they are regarded in their individual (
οἱ ἐν
τέλει) or their collective
τέλη)
capacity.
“ The subjects of discussion in the popular assemblies which we find in
the historians are the election of magistrates and Gerontes, decisions
upon a disputed succession between pretenders to the crown, votes
concerning peace and war, and treaties with foreign states, or finally
legislative measures, although we are unable to state definitely which
of these subjects were referred originally to the people, and which only
at a later time, or which of them were heard before the Great and which
before the Small Ecclesia [on this
μικρὰ
ἐκκλησία, mentioned only
Xen.
Hell. 3.3, § 8, see
ECCLETI]. As far as concerns legislation
especially, this was in Sparta of so fixed and rigid a nature that the
assembly had much less business in connexion with it than in other
states; and if we except the gradual extension of the privileges of the
ephoralty, which could hardly have resulted without occasional decrees
of the people, we find no mention until the times of Agis and Cleomenes
of legislative measures which can be regarded as passed by the people,
with exception of the permission to use gold and silver in the State
treasury, and the law of Epitadeus by which the inalienability of family
estates was removed.” (Schömann,
Antiq.
1.235, E. T.)
The commingling of monarchical, aristocratic or oligarchic, and democratic
elements in the Spartan constitution was noticed by ancient writers; but the
clearer-sighted among them saw what is still more evident to the moderns,
that the oligarchic element largely preponderated. Thus Isocrates, who was
completely out of sympathy with the democratic institutions of his own
country, referring to the greatly increased authority of the kings in
war-time, speaks of the Lacedaemonians as “the best governed of the
Greeks, an oligarchy in peace, a monarchy in war”
(
Nicocl. § 24). It was also seen that the
constitution, as settled by Lycurgus, was greatly altered in character by
the usurpation of the ephors; while the complete exclusion of the Perioeci
and Helots from all share in the government did not strike them as
incompatible with democracy. Thus Plato doubted whether the government of
Sparta might not be called a “tyranny,” in consequence of the
extensive powers of the ephoralty, though it was as much like a democracy as
any form of government could well be; and yet, he adds, not to call it an
aristocracy (i. e. a government of the
ἄριστοι) is quite absurd. Aristotle, when he enumerates the
reasons why the Spartan government was called an oligarchy, makes no mention
of the relations between the Spartans and their conquered subjects, but
observes that it received this name because it had many oligarchical
institutions, such as that none of the magistrates were chosen by lot; that
a few persons were competent to inflict banishment and death (
Pol. 4.9==p. 1294 b, 31). In another passage he
views the question somewhat differently, insisting more upon the balance of
powers in the constitution and less on the predominance of a single element:
“Some declare that the best form of government is one mixed of all
the forms, wherefore they praise the Spartan constitution: for some say
that it is composed of an oligarchy, a monarchy, and a democracy--a
monarchy on account of the kings, an oligarchy on account of the
councillors, and a democracy on account of the ephors; but others say
that
[p. 1.916]the ephoralty is a ‘tyranny;’ whereas, on the other hand, it may
be affirmed that the public tables, and the regulations of daily life,
are of a democratic tendency” (
Pol.
2.6 == p. 1265 b, 33 ff.). In reality the clearest proof of the essentially
oligarchical character of the Spartan government is the jealous
exclusiveness with which, in spite of dwindling numbers, they refused to
admit new blood. As in other oligarchies ancient and modern, this
exclusiveness was not incompatible with the haughty equality of all who
stood within the charmed circle; but at Sparta that equality was modified by
the distinction, still somewhat obscure, between the
ὅμοιοι and
ὑπομείονες
[
HOMOEI]. The Greeks
naturally associated oligarchy with the ostentatious enjoyment of wealth;
and as we see from the last-quoted passage, they were sometimes misled by
the simplicity and rigour of the Spartan training, and ascribed to a
democratic instinct what was really a necessity of class and racial
domination. “All Laconia was a camp, the Spartiatae a garrison”
[
EMPHRURI]; and they
remained during the whole course of their history as alien in blood from the
subject population as the Normans in England for a short period after the
Conquest. The case is pithily summed up by Grote (2.127): “Though
Greek theorists found a difficulty in determining under what class they
should arrange it, it was in substance a close, unscrupulous, and
well-obeyed oligarchy--including within it, as subordinate, those
portions which had once been dominant, the kings and the senate, and
softening the odium, without abating the mischief, of the system, by its
annual change of the ruling ephors.”
Authorities.--1. for the facts of the Spartan constitution:
Schömann,
Antiq. 1.191-295, E. T.; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. 1.44-56; Busolt,
Griech.
Gesch. 1.94-135; Thumser,
Staatsalterth. pt. i.
(1889), in Hermann-Blümner, § § 23-25, pp.
146-176. 2. for historical criticism of its spirit: Arnold,
Thucydides, vol. i. App. ii. in the 2nd and
subsequent edd., largely modified by Sir G. C. Lewis' review of edit. 1 in
Philol. Mus. 2.38-71; Thirlwall, vol. i. ch. 8; Grote,
vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. 6.
[
R.W] [
W.W]