Spartan Government During The Catalyst of the Great Rhetra

Around 750 BCE many facets of Spartan life where changed radically. These changes were attributed to the legendary pseudo-divine lawmaker Lycurgus who created the Great Rhetra: a new constitution for the Spartan people. While the political system of the Great Rhetra continued to exist for many hundreds of years with relative stability, it did so with the rise to power of the Ephorate, the tyrannically powerful magistracy, despite many conservative Spartan views of its inalterability.

The events surrounding the massive political changes that occurred in Sparta near the close of the eighth century are told to us by a number of ancient sources, and while they leave us with a number of different stories on the origins of the Great Rhetra, we find ourselves with some very definite effects given the new system of government. Among the myriad social, economic, moral, and military changes attributed to the changes by the deific lawgiver, we are left with a new political system in the constitution of the Great Rhetra. The original constitution established in the Great Rhetra that Plutarch sets before us is made up by[1] two kings, a council of elders, and a general assembly.[2] Prior to the possible Lycurgan reforms there already existed a hereditary system of two kings, with King Charilaus of the Eurypontid dynasty, and Archelaus of the Agiads, being Lycurgus' contemporaries by Plutarch's account, but the other parts are were newer constructions.[3]

The Constitution of the Great Rhetra:

With the Lycurgan reforms the kings remained the figurehead of the Spartan government. In war the Kings were the commanders of the army, and the final word once it made the field.[4] During times of peace they were the spiritual leaders of Sparta, leading the polis' religious rituals and sacrifices, as well as overseeing limited judicial power over family cases such as inheritance, adoption, and marriage issues. The rest of their responsibilities were constituted as equals to the other twenty-eight members of the Gerousia[5], the council of elders.[6] While they did not have an impressive amount of power during peacetime from a purely constitutional standpoint, they held a very high degree of social power and influence, especially with regards to those kings who were commanders of successful campaigns and those who held credit for various other deeds.[7]

The next body in the Spartan government is the council of elders: the Gerousia, which was made of thirty members, including the two kings. Besides the two kings, all members were sixty years of age or older and were members for life.[8] The Gerousia was the chief judicial branch at the time of the Rhetra. In this role they oversaw criminal and capital cases, judged trials of the kings when they were brought up on charges, and were the only branch able to exile citizens, call for an execution, or strip an individual of their political rights.[9] The Gerousia was also the branch responsible for the discussion and review of bills prior to the vote for ratification made by the general assembly, and held the responsibility of convening the assembly for voting.[10]

The last major branch of government attributed to the Lycurgan reforms was the Ekklesia[11], a popular assembly made up of all Spartan citizens age twenty[12] and older.[13] In Plutarch's account of Lycurgus and his Great Rhetra, he speaks of the Gerousia gathering the people and that thus assembled they would have the final decision on matters of the state. While the assembly is not directly named in the Rhetra, we are given its role and the constraints as used later in the Ekklesia of which we are familiar. The role laid down in Plutarch's passage noted above is to hear the issues brought forth by the Gerousia, and then without discussion, or any other verbal participation,[14] the assembly was to vote a straight yes or no. [15] While the actual democratic power of the assembly was questionable given their complete inability to discuss or participate on matters[16], there were some important matters that were the sole responsibility of the assembly to vote upon. Some examples include voting on whether to go to war, who was to be assigned to command an army in the field, and as will be addressed later on new members of the Gerousia, [17] though how social classes and influence played into these decisions and negated the actual power held by the assembly, is something to be debated.[18]

The Institution of the Ephorate and Changes to the Spartan Constitution:

There is much debate surrounding the details of the Lycurgan period of political reform, and within the actual time frame of the enactment of the Great Rhetra we have our first constitutional change: a rider to the Rhetra. This rider gave the Gerousia the power to veto any decision made by the assembly that was judged twisted by the crooked vote of the people.[19] This is attributed to the kings Polydoros and Theopompos, thought to possibly be contemporaries of Lycurgus, so that the rider may have been added during his lifetime, and perhaps even under his guidance.[20] This rider also lessened the power wielded by the assembly, largely removing from it any considerable value as a democratic institution remaining in it by this time by forcing any law passed to be in agreement with the position of the Gerousia.

It has been argued that while the Spartan government constitutionally had democratic elements such as the assembly, and the assembly-voted Ephors and Gerousia, the power largely resided within the rule of the few, and this did not diminish over time. This is seen because of the effects of the rider, the nature of the assembly as a body unable to raise bills or participate in any actual discussion, as well as Sparta's diminishing population over time, further limiting the assemblies' power.

In the hundreds of years after the enactment of the Lycurgan reforms there was a gradual shift in the roles and powers of a number of the main branches of government, given the ebb and flow of the political world despite the extreme conservatism of Sparta. There was, however, one source of change that largely overshadowed all others, which was the establishment of the Ephorate. This was a council made of five members thirty years of age or older, for a term of one year, with no member being allowed to serve twice. [21] This council was charged to monitor the kings on military campaign and at home as well as oversee many other responsibilities.

There is much dispute over the date of origin of the Ephorate, with some accounts placing the creation of the Ephorate 130 years after the death of Lycurgus[22], some suggesting the possibility that Theopompos instituted the Ephorate in order to maintain the kingship[23], as well as some that have attributed it to Lycurgus himself.[24] The importance and likely truth to the matter is that the Ephorate was created fairly early on during the eighth century, and was a gradual development over time. This could explain why it has not often been mentioned directly until later, similar to many of the other more minor magistracies and branches of government not mentioned in the Great Rhetra.[25] Cartledge suggests that the Ephorate may have started as more of a religious branch and evolved into the powerful secular council we know of during later Spartan history.[26]

In time the Ephorate grew to hold considerable constitutional powers[27] and held many responsibilities. Their primary role, as stated, was in monitoring the kings to guard against tyranny and unconstitutional acts. Towards the fulfillment of this role the Ephors were empowered to depose kings and any other magistrates' mid-career, bringing them to trial in front of the Gerousia, as well as to assign summary fines for whatever they wished upon any Spartan citizen. Given the immense power of the kings in times of war, two Ephors were required to follow the kings into battle to observe his behavior and decisions. To achieve these goals, they were also attributed the responsibilities of being the ones to marshal the army in times of war, decide its composition[28], and establish supply trains for the campaign.[29] In time the Ephors were able to infringe further on the total power of the kings during war, in that they could send specific directions to the kings.[30]

Some of their many other powers and responsibilities included leading the Ekklesia to present issues for discussion. We also know them to have attended the meetings of the Gerousia, with the possibility of having led their meetings as well.[31] We have documentation of the Ephorate, at one time, convening the assembly and putting matters for it's members to vote on before approaching the Gerousia for their judgment on the matter, but it appears that the Gerousia was still required to ratify the bills.[32] When it came to judicial matters the Ephors would preside over hearings of capital cases to decide if they were to go to court before the Gerousia, and when given the power, they were the only ones who presided over civil cases.[33]

Among the other powers the Ephorate had, included control over the Spartan treasury[34], complete control over the Agoge[35], and the responsibility of domestic security against the enemy within: the helots and perioikoi. They annually declared war against the helots so that they might command military action against them, and issue summary executions without causing the religious taint that was tied with murder. The Ephors also controlled the Krypteia, an organization of elite soldiers similar to many modern nations' secret police, which would plant agents around the helots to observe and investigate subversive behavior and execute the leaders of these groups without trial.[36]

While some of these aspects of the Ephors' powers were developed and instituted gradually, it appears that at least a considerable portion of their duties were created at one time, given that we have reason to believe they existed as a more minor magistracy until one of the various creation stories brings them into the foray.[37] With the addition of this branch of government all the other branches were affected considerably in at least some meaningful ways. Theopompos is said to have created the Ephorate so that the kingship would continue.[38] This appears most likely to be speaking about the Ephorate's primary role as overseers of the king to prevent any tyrannical grabs for power that might force a judgment to dissolve the kingship like most other poleis at this time had already done. Considering the continued level of influence that the kings maintained even during times of peace, this does not seem like an unreasonable decision even from one of the kings himself, either as a philanthropist or because of wishes for his family's continued status and well-being.

Understandably, the creation of the Ephorate and the displacement of power created waves within the political atmosphere of Sparta. There is documentation of friction between the kings and the Ephors, likely due to the overall relationship of the Ephors as tyrannically powerful private citizens and the gradual increase of power the Ephors held. Something that must be noted, as has been commented on somewhat above, is that the Ephors only served one-year terms, and could not be members twice. However once they ceased being Ephors they were likely to be without any degree of immunity from political retribution directed at them by kings or other political members. Most of the time if a king or other magistrate conducted an unpopular action, the Ephors could take reactionary measures, and have the people's support. When a king or other magistrate acted well or made good suggestions, they were typically heeded and left unhindered by the Ephors. Also given their short terms of service, it was not unknown for a council of Ephors to establish a bill or commit an action, and then have their replacements attempt to repeal it, so that over the course of a few years the Ephorate's actions were often those that went along with the popular position. While there was some hostility at times between the Ephors and other branches, it rarely, if ever, was the primary concern for any involved, and during the reigns of stronger kings and more moderate Ephors, tension was kept expectably minimal.[39]

To look at the actual changes made by the Ephorate we can start with those made to the kingship. One of the more considerable changes was the control of foreign policy wielded by the Ephors. This appears to be part of the reason for two Ephors joining a king at any given battle, in addition to monitoring his general behavior[40], so that they could address any peace treaties or other political actions that occurred while on campaign. While at home they addressed foreign envoys and made judgments concerning foreign aid, negotiations, and what to present before the Gerousia and assembly. Also they controlled decisions concerning Spartans wishing to travel and live abroad. [41] Between the encroachment on military matters[42], foreign policy[43], and the gradual shift in religious responsibilities taken over by the Ephorate[44], the kings were constitutionally stripped down considerably to the point of effectively being generals and members of the Gerousia, though it does not appear that the list of lifelong honors to the kings were diminished, and one must keep in mind the continuation of social power as commented on above.[45]

The changes made to the Gerousia by the Ephors were less severe than those enacted upon the kingship. The biggest change the Ephors instituted on the Gerousia appears to be that of changing the members of the Gerousia to being those over the age of 60 elected by the assembly.[46] The Ephorate largely appeared to be charged with different roles and responsibilities than that of the Gerousia, and with their primary role being to monitor and oversee the kingship as a monarchical entity with a completely different nature than that of the oligarchic elected council of elders, there was little reason for conflict. When decisions needed to be made quickly in emergency situations, the Ephors also appeared to consult at least some of the Gerousia before acting[47], and along with the Gerousia needing to approve matters that were first brought up by the Ephors to the Ekklesia[48], friction and change between the two bodies were minimal.

Similarly to the Gerousia, there were few changes that the Ephors enacted upon the assembly given the respective natures of their roles in government, and that the Ephors were elected by the assembly to act on the behalf of the people. In emergency situations such as that mentioned above where the assembly was not consulted before action was made, it does appear that the Ephors were acting in popular interests, and that the assembly was later brought into matters in their normal capacity.[49] The larger effect had upon the assembly appears more so to be the eventual decline in the Spartiate population, than any directive of another branch of government, making potential manipulation of the votes in the assembly more easily accomplished, and lowering their influence in the decisions of the polis due to possible bribing and fewer choices for candidates up for election for the Gerousia and Ephorate.

The institution of the Ephorate was among the largest changes made to the Spartan constitution since the Lycurgan reforms on account of the creation of its role as overseers of the king and its absorption of many roles and responsibilities from the other branches of government. After the instatement of the Ephors, or their initial rise to political importance, we still see further gradual and sudden changes in their own power and role in Spartan politics over time such as the development of their responsibilities outside of their role as overseers. Aside from the Ephorate there were many smaller institutional shifts and changes in political tradition as time went on and life changed within Sparta and in the Greek world as a whole due to wars, the occasional rise of factionalism during the reigns of more controversial kings and magistrates, etc. such as the institution of the rider. As with all governments, change and adaptation is necessary for the continuation of stability, and Sparta was no exception.

[1] Herodotus presents the contrary position that the Ephorate was also present in the Great Rhetra, but we see his nowhere in Tyrtaios poems, and Aristotle's account of the Great Rhetra, and while Tyrtaios also does not mention Lycurgus directly some scholars site this as due to Tyrtaios political leanings, where as we have no such notion concerning the Ephorate (Tyrtaios as a source discussed in W. G. Forrest's article The Date of Lykourgan Reforms in Sparta 174).

[2] Plutarch 46.

[3] It is important to note here that the sources of Lycurgus and the Great Rhetra come from what is believed to be the Great Rhetra itself as a document, and the words of Tyrtaios the poet. Both of these are said to be preserved by Aristotle, where upon Plutarch reconstructs them and presents them to us in Lives of the Noble Greeks. This is discussed and presented to us in The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch, by Wade-Gery 115.

[4] Herodotus The Histories (New York: Barnes and Noble Books) VI.56.

[5] This matter is discussed by Paul Cartledge in Agesilaos 122-3, which I believe rightly addresses the extra influence that the kings wield in the Gerousia through their hereditary ties with other members of the council, which we can assume via the practice of proxy voting in the instance of a kings absence, as well I believe as the high social status and influence given to a king as a military leader, and quite often a man of other deeds.

[6] Pomeroy 103.

[7] Cartledge 136-8.

[8] The significance of the number of council members is not definitively known, though the age requirement corresponds to the age at which compulsory military participation by male citizens ends.

[9] A.H.M. Jones Sparta 17.

[10] A. Andrewes The Government of Classical Sparta 4.

[11] This body is often known as the Apella, on account of the Great Rhetra stating that it will be convened each month on the new moon, which was taken in Sparta as a religious festival celebrating Apollo. This celebration was known as the Apella. The actual council was named, as the Athenian popular council, the Ekklesia. This is pointed out by Cartledge in the Agesilaos 129-130.

[12] I have come across the occasional oddity in some historians asserting that the age of admittance to the Ekklesia was 18, but given that one became a full Spartan citizen and active militant at 20, I believe it to be the correct age.

[13]Jones 20-25.

[14] We have records of other officials speaking in the assembly, but we have no evidence for regular members of the assembly ever having been allowed to speak and discuss matters being proposed to the assembly such as the kings and members of the Gerousia (Jones 20-21), though some historians have made the suggestion that this rule may not have been strictly enforced later on in Sparta's independent form, but given that the individual Spartan citizen was indoctrinated from a very young age to revere authority, especially those elder to themselves, even with the hundreds of years of the Ekklesia meeting I don't find this an unreasonable notion (Cartledge 129).

[15] Plutarch 46-47.

[16] In Aristotles account of the Spartan assembly he ascribes his opinion that it was nothing more than a rubber stamp, using wording that implied that it did not contain the capacity to vote no, merely ratify whatever the Gerousia put before it. We have no particular reason to believe that the assembly in fact lacked the option to vote no, so Aristotles' full meaning is unknown at this time, but it is possible that he was referring to the rider to the Great Rhetra which is attributed to kings Polydoros and Theopompos, which I will speak of in the next paragraph (A. Andrewes 2-3).

[17] A. Andrews 10.

[18] Cartledge 130.

[19] Plutarch 46.

[20] Forrest 161.

[21] Jones 26.

[22] Xenophon, VIII.

[23] Cartledge 126. This is the position I find most credible and likely, given that Theopompos was known as a reformer, we have a few accounts to suggest it, and the timing appears to match up reasonably well.

[24] Herodotus 1.65.5.

[25] Another possible factor is that the Ephors appeared to be appointed by the kings, and not voted in by the assembly as it was for most of its existence (Huxley Early Sparta 39.)

[26] Cartledge 125-126.

[27] As with the kings, there is a big difference in constitutional and social power in ancient Sparta. Given that the Ephors were taken from the general assembly, not necessarily being the better of the Spartans' administrators and politicians, as well as only having a one year term, only servable once, the Ephors would be very much accountable after their short tenure. Unless the Ephors held some other social status beyond that of tenure as an Ephor, they would be nothing more than another citizen once their year was over. Cartledge also speaks to the effect that the selection of the Ephors could very possibly have been affected by the kings via bribes or other motivation given the small body from which the Ephors were actually likely to have been pulled, especially as the Spartiate population decreased over time. (Cartledge 126)

[28] Xenophon Constitution of the Lacedaemonians II.2.

[29] Andrewes 10.

[30] Andrewes 12.

[31] Andrewes 13.

[32] Cartledge 129.

[33] Cartledge 129.

[34] Cartledge 129.

[35] Cartledge 128. This was the name given to the Spartan education system that inducted all Spartiate males at a young age to train them as professional warriors, if they were able to provide the required funding (which most appeared to be able to).

[36] Pomeroy 104.

[37] See page 5.

[38] Cartledge 126.

[39] Cartledge 126-128.

[40] One particular incident that illustrates the purpose of the Ephors for adaptive change in 508 or 506 BCE on a campaign against Athens King Cleomenes marshaled an army without stating the details for which they were being gathered but before they engaged with their allies against the Athenians the army fragmented, including the desertion of Demaratos, the brother king of Cleomenes, and so upon the return of the armies a law was written that only one king was to be vacant from Sparta at once to lead an army. This is in Herodotus V.74-75, and while he does not specify that this action was made by the Ephors, we know by this time that the Ephors were present with the kings in battle, and were charged with reporting and detailing this information back to the Gerousia and Ekklesia even if they had not taken the action upon themselves to request this specific action be passed.

[41] Cartledge 128.

[42] Andrewes 10-12.

[43] Andrewes 13.

[44] Andrew Bell Spectacular Power in the Greek and Roman City (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 3.65.

[45] These included being fed by the state with double portions of food, and when guests at others oikos the right of double portions was also maintained, as well as being given the first and best portions of all sacrifices, among other means of recognition (Herodotus, VI.56-58).

[46] Jones 28.

[47] Andrewes 11.

[48] Jones 22-25.

[49] Andrewes 11-12.

Works Cited

Andrewes, A. "The Government of Classical Sparta." Ancient Society and Institutions. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc. 1-20.

Aristotle. Constitution of the Lacedaemonians.

Aristotle. Politics.

Bell, Andrew. Spectacular Power in the Greek and Roman City. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004.

Cartledge, Paul. Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1987.

Forrest, W. G. "Legislation in Sparta." Phoenix 21 (1967): 11-19. Jstor.

Forrest, W. G. "The Date of Lykourgan Reforms in Sparta." Phoenix 17 (1963): 157-179.

Herodotus. The Histories. Trans. G. C. Macaulay New York: Barnes and Noble Books 1890.

Huxley, G. L. Early Sparta. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1962.

Jones, A.H.M. Sparta. Oxford: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Limited, 1967.

Osborne, Robin. Greece in the Making New York: Routledge 1996.

Plutarch. Lives of the Noble Greeks New York: Dell CO., Inc. 1959.

Pomeroy, Sarah B., Stanley M. Burstein, Walter Donlan, and Jennifer Tolbert Roberts. A Brief History of Ancient Greece New York: Oxford University Press 2004.

Runciman, W. G. "Origins of States: the Case of Archaic Greece." Comparative Studies in Society and History 24 (1982): 351-377.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Trans. Rex Warner New York: Penguin Group 1954.

Wade-Gery, H. T. "The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch Lycurgus VI: a. Plutarch's Text." The Cassical Quarterly 37 (1943): 62-72.

Wade-Gery, H. T. "The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch Lycurgus VI: a. Plutarch's Text." The Classical Quarterly 37 (1943): 62-72.

Wade-Gery, H. T. "The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch Lycurgus VI: B. the Eynomia of Tyrtaios." The Classical Quarterly 38 (1944): 1-9.

Wade-Gery, H. T. "The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch, Lycurgus VI: C. What is the Rhetra?" The Classical Quarterly 38 (1944): 115-126.

Xenophon. Polity Athenians and Lacedaemonians. Trans. H. H. Dakyns. Project Gutenberg Etext.