INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY OF

THE FIFTH AND FOURTH CENTURIES BCE

John A. Rothchild

Wayne State University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series
No. 07-32

October 9, 2007

Papers posted in the The Wayne State University Law School Legal Studies Research
Paper Series can be downloaded at the following url:
http://www.ssrn.com/link/Wayne-State-U-LEG.html

and

The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1020397
 Introduction to Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

John A. Rothchild

Abstract: This essay serves to introduce students to the institutions of the democratic
constitution of ancient Athens, during its flowering in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.
Its principal purpose is to enable students to compare the Athenian democracy with the
system established by the U.S. Constitution. It will serve equally well to meet the needs
of anyone who is interested in the Athenian democracy for its own sake. The essay
assumes no prior background knowledge about the Athenian system.

The Athenian democracy is worthy of study if for no other reason than that it was the
inspiration for modern democratic systems. The ancient system takes on added interest
from the standpoint of comparative constitutional law. Many of the institutions of the
Athenian democracy seem quite peculiar to us moderns, and some of them strike us as
downright bizarre. Yet the goals of those who designed that system were very similar to
the goals of the designers of modern constitutional democracies: establishment of a
system in which political power resided with the people, in which government officials
had enough power to be able to discharge their functions, and in which official power
was effectively constrained so that it did not devolve into tyranny.

The essay has several features that enhance its pedagogical mission. The expository
portion is followed by a set of review questions that help the student test her
comprehension, and a set of discussion questions meant to facilitate classroom
discussion. A glossary of Greek terms used in the essay is also included.
Introduction to the Athenian Democracy
of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE

John A. Rothchild*
Associate Professor of Law
Wayne State University
Detroit, Michigan
Acknowledgements.......................................................... 3
I. Introduction ................................................................. 4
II. Time period and cultural context................................. 4
III. Geography and demographics .................................... 5
IV. Just enough history ................................................... 6
A. History on the ground .............................................. 6
B. Constitutional history .............................................. 9
V. Structure of the Athenian democracy ........................ 13
A. Citizenship and the franchise................................. 13
B. The Council of 500................................................. 15
1. Membership and pay........................................... 15
2. Administration of Council meetings..................... 15
3. Functions of the Council ..................................... 16
C. The Assembly ........................................................ 17
1. Membership, attendance, and pay....................... 17
2. Frequency of meetings ........................................ 17
3. Procedure ........................................................... 18

* ©2007 John A. Rothchild.

2 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

4. Laws and decrees................................................ 19

5. Making and changing the laws: nomothesia......... 19
6. “Judicial review” via graphē paranomōn............... 21
D. The jury courts ...................................................... 22
1. Selection of jurors ............................................... 23
2. Jurors’ pay.......................................................... 24
3. Appeals............................................................... 25
4. Initiating a lawsuit .............................................. 25
5. Conduct of trials ................................................. 26
6. Nonjudicial functions of the jury courts............... 28
E. The Areopagos ....................................................... 28
1. Membership ........................................................ 28
2. Functions ........................................................... 29
F. Magistrates ............................................................ 29
1. The nine archons ................................................ 30
2. The Eleven .......................................................... 31
3. Astynomoi ........................................................... 31
4. Agoranomoi ......................................................... 32
5. Logistai and euthynoi .......................................... 32
6. The ten strategoi ................................................. 32
VI. Methods of constraining the power of public officials 33
A. Dokimasia.............................................................. 34
B. Eisangelia.............................................................. 34
C. Epikheirotonia........................................................ 35
D. Euthyna ................................................................ 35
E. Apophasis.............................................................. 36
VII. Review questions .................................................... 37
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 3

VIII. Discussion questions ............................................. 38

IX. Glossary .................................................................. 41

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The image of the Monument of the Eponymous Heroes at
p. 20 is by W.B. Dinsmoor Jr., and appears in Mabel Lang,
Socrates in the Agora (Am. Sch. of Class. Studies at Athens
1978). The image of the voting tokens at p. 27 appears in
Mabel Lang, The Athenian Citizen (Am. Sch. of Class. Studies
at Athens 1987). Both images are used with permission of
the American School of Classical Studies at Athens,
http://www.ascsa.edu.gr.
The image of the kleroteria at p. 23 is from Sterling Dow,
Aristotle, the Kleroteria, and the Courts, Harv. Stud. in Class.
Phil., vol. 50 (1939), pp. 1-34. It is used with permission of
the Department of the Classics, Harvard University.
4 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

I. INTRODUCTION
This essay provides background information about the
democratic constitution of Athens in the fifth and fourth cen-
turies BCE, with the aim of facilitating a comparison of that
system with the government established by the U.S. Consti-
tution.
The Athenian democracy is the world’s oldest well-
documented democratic polity, and as such has served as an
inspiration, and cautionary tale, for the designers of all sub-
sequent democracies. It is inspirational because it empow-
ered citizens to an extent that is virtually unique among sys-
tems of government that the world has known. It is a cau-
tionary tale because, in the view of many observers, its radi-
cally direct form of democracy led to excesses and is in any
event not scalable to the large populations and geographical
extent of modern nations.
The text above refers to the Athenian “constitution.” The
term is used here in the older sense, meaning the way that a
government is constituted. There was in Athens no written
constitution along the lines of the U.S. Constitution. The
Athenian constitution, like the unwritten constitution of
modern England, was a collection of customs, laws, institu-
tions, and understandings, which were never reduced to a
single document.

II. TIME PERIOD AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

Our focus is principally on what is usually called the clas-
sical period in Athenian history. This period runs from 490
BCE, the year of the first Persian invasion of Greece, until
323 BCE, when Alexander the Great died.
The classical period was the era of the Athenians’ greatest
accomplishments. During this period, in the view of many,
the Athenians single-handedly invented western philosophy,
drama, and the writing of history. In philosophy, there were
Socrates (469-399 BCE), Plato (428-348 BCE), and Aristotle
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 5

(384-322 BCE). The great Athenian dramatists flourished

during this time: Aeschylus (525-456 BCE), Sophocles (495-
406 BCE), Euripides (480-406 BCE), and Aristophanes (446-
388 BCE). Herodotus (~490 - ~425 BCE)1 wrote a history of
the Persian Wars, and Thucydides (~460/455 - ~399 BCE) a
history of the Peloponnesian War.

III. GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHICS

For all of its influence, Athens was a surprisingly small
place. The city walls enclosed an area that extended less
than a mile from one end to the other. Athens and its envi-
rons, called Attica, covered an area of about 640 square
miles, somewhat larger than the area of Houston, Texas.
The population of Athens varied considerably during the
classical period, with significant losses due to war (and ac-
companying plague) and emigration. We must distinguish
between the population of adult males, who alone had the
right to participate in government, and the entire population,
including women, children, foreigners, and slaves. There
may have been about 60,000 adult male citizens in the fifth
century, before the Peloponnesian War, and about 30,000 in
the fourth century. The entire citizen population, including
women and children, might have been 160,000 in the fourth
century. To this must be added about 25,000 resident aliens,
and at least 200,000 slaves.
The basic political unit of Greek-speaking people during
this time was the polis (pl. poleis). This term is usually trans-
lated as “city-state.” A polis had characteristics of both a city
and a country: it was the size of a city, in most cases what
we would consider a small city; but it had an autonomous
political system, like a country. There were 700 poleis that
we know of, and Athens was the largest.

1 Although not an Athenian, Herodotus spent time in Athens and was

acquainted with some of its leading citizens.
6 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

IV. JUST ENOUGH HISTORY

The Athenian democracy developed in and was condi-
tioned by a particular historical context. The most salient
features of this context are a series of wars: wars between
the Greeks and the Persians, and wars among the Greeks
themselves. For a time, Athens established itself at the head
of a mini-empire, with other Greek poleis as its subjects. The
democracy ultimately came to an end after conquest of the
Greeks by the Macedonians.

A. HISTORY ON THE GROUND

The Persian Wars. During the classical period, the Greeks
found themselves intermittently in conflict with the Persian
Empire. The Persians controlled a vast territory, many times
the size of Greece, including all or most of modern Iran, Iraq,

The Persian empire in 500 BCE. Greece is the small peninsula

in the upper left.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey, extending through the

Mideast to include parts of Egypt and Libya, and into the
Balkans. In 490 BCE under King Darius, and again in 480
under King Xerxes, the Persians invaded mainland Greece
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 7

with huge land and sea forces, and attempted to subjugate

it.2 The Athenians played a leading role in defeating the Per-
sians, with decisive victories on the plain of Marathon and in
the waters around the island of Salamis.
The Athenian empire. After the defeat of Xerxes in 479
BCE, the Athenians formed a coalition of Greek poleis, called

The Spartan and Athenian alliances in the Peloponnesian War.

2 The Persians were bent on revenge against the Athenians who, in the
490s BCE, had supported a revolt by Greek cities in Asia Minor against
their Persian overlords. The revolt included the burning of Sardis, a Per-
sian provincial capital.
8 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

the Delian League, for the ostensible purpose of serving as a

defensive and offensive alliance against the Persians. Within
a decade, the League devolved into an empire controlled by
Athens. Member states were assessed an annual payment
towards the League’s expenses. The contributions were
managed by Athens, which later converted the League’s
treasury to its own uses. Members that sought to withdraw
from the alliance were ruthlessly suppressed by Athenian
military force.
The Peloponnesian War. After sporadic low-level fighting
over three decades, war between the Athenians and the
Spartans,3 supported by their respective allies, commenced
in 431 BCE. The war lasted, with some interruptions, until
404 BCE, when the Spartans starved Athens into submis-
sion by cutting off its supply of food from the Black Sea. The
Spartans thereupon installed a pro-Spartan oligarchy in
Athens, referred to as the Thirty Tyrants.
Fourth century BCE. The Athenian democracy was soon
restored. The fourth century was a tumultuous period char-
acterized by shifting alliances among the poleis and sporadic
wars.
Conquest by Macedonia. In the 350s BCE, Philip II, king of
Macedon (a territory just to the north of the Greek
mainland), began an expansion of his kingdom through a
step-by-step conquest of areas in the northern part of
Greece, gradually extending his control southwards towards
Athens. By 338, Athens was effectively under the control of
Philip. In 322, Antipater, who controlled Greece after the
death of Philip’s son Alexander the Great, put down an at-
tempted revolt by the Greeks and imposed an oligarchic re-
gime on Athens, ending the Athenian democracy.

3Sparta was a militarily powerful polis that was a longstanding rival

of Athens for leadership of the Greeks. It was located in and dominated a
peninsular region of Greece called the Peloponnese.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 9

B. CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
The Athenian system of government went through several
stages on the way to the mature form of democracy it
reached in the fifth century BCE.
Monarchy. According to legend, Athens was governed by a
series of kings from the earliest times, starting with King Ce-
crops (half man, half snake) in the sixteenth century BCE. At
some early date, possibly in the eleventh century BCE, the
functions that had previously been exercised by a single king
were divided among three officials: the Archon, the King Ar-
chon, and the Polemarch. At some later time, perhaps in the
mid-seventh century, six thesmothetai were added to the
other three, so that there were nine archons altogether.
These nine officials were the forerunners of the officials hold-
ing the same titles under the later democratic system.4
The reforms of Solon. Solon was ap-
pointed by the Athenians in 594 BCE
to reform the laws so as to moderate
the strife between the wealthy and the
poorer classes. He instituted some po-
litical and legal changes that were a
step towards democracy. He created a
Council of 400, with 100 members from
each of the four tribes. The Council
acted as a counterweight against the
Solon Areopagos,5 an aristocratic body with
origins predating Solon, and the ar-
chons. Solon gave citizens a right to appeal from a decision
of a magistrate to the law court, which meant that the aris-
tocratic magistrates were for the first time accountable to the

4 On the role of the archons during the democracy, see below at p. 30.
5 On the role of the Areopagos during the democracy, see below at p.
28.
10 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

people. An Assembly consisting of all citizens,6 also predat-

ing Solon, was also part of the Solonian system.
Tyranny of the Peisistratids. Solon’s reforms did not end
the societal strife, and struggles for political power contin-
ued. In 546 BCE, Peisistratos seized power in Athens, and
established himself as tyrannos. (He had seized power twice
previously, in 561 and 555, but had been ejected each time.)
Peisistratos ruled
from 546 until his
death in 527.
The term tyrannos
is usually translated
as “tyrant,” but at the
time the word did not
hold its modern con-
notations: it denoted
one who had seized
power in an unconsti-
tutional way, but a
tyrannos did not nec- Assassination of Hipparchus by
essarily rule harshly Harmodius and Aristogeiton
or arbitrarily. Peisis-
tratos pursued a
moderate policy, and was said to be popular both with the
notables and with the ordinary people.7 Probably Peisistratos
did not disturb the operation of Solon’s institutions: the Are-
opagos, the Assembly, and the Council of 400.

6 On the role of the Assembly during the democracy, see below at p.

17.
7 “For both the notables and the men of the people were most of them

willing for him to govern, since he won over the former by his hospitality
and the latter by his assistance in their private affairs, and was good-
natured to both.” Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 16. This work, whose title is usually
translated as “The Constitution of the Athenians,” is attributed to Aris-
totle, but may have been written by his students. It is a principal source
of information about the Athenian democracy.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 11

Peisistratus was succeeded by his sons Hippias and Hip-

parchus. Their reign was mild at first, but later became
harsher. Hipparchus was assassinated, and in 511/10 BCE
Hippias was expelled.
The reforms of Cleisthenes. In 507 BCE, after a further
power struggle, Cleisthenes, who like Solon before him came
from an aristocratic family, instituted a series of reforms that
are viewed as first establishing the Athenian democracy. One
of his principal goals was to diminish the political power of
the aristocratic families, by eliminating the political func-
tions of the four tribes. These tribes had their origins in pre-
history and were dominated by aristocratic clans.
Cleisthenes removed all political func-
tions from the tribes, and established the
deme as the main local political institution.
Demes were geographically based political
units. There were 139 demes throughout
Attica, of which the leadership was democ-
ratically elected, rather than hereditary as
with the tribes.
Cleisthenes reallocated the people into
ten tribes, each containing demes from the coast of Attica,
from the interior around Athens, and from the polis of Ath-
ens. This served to dilute the power of the aristocratic clans.
The tribes were the basis for many of the allocations of po-
litical power in the democracy. Cleisthenes also created a
Council of 500,8 which replaced Solon’s Council of 400. Its
functions were similar to those of Solon’s Council, but the
500 had more authority and prestige.
The reforms of Ephialtes. After the defeat of Xerxes in 479
BCE, there was a struggle in Athens between a faction that
favored a more radical democracy and another that was
more inclined toward aristocratic rule. In 462 BCE, Ephial-

8 On the role of the Council during the democracy, see below at p. 15.
12 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

tes, then the leader of the pro-democratic faction, gained as-

cendancy, and instituted a series of reforms that led to the
mature form of the democracy.
His most significant reforms consisted of depriving the
aristocratic Areopagos of most of its political powers; in-
creasing the powers of the Assembly; and restructuring the
law court into panels that sat as courts of first instance,
rather than being limited to hearing appeals from decisions
of magistrates. After the assassination of Ephialtes, leader-
ship passed to Pericles, who in the 450s introduced pay for
service on the Council and on juries, which had the effect of
further democratizing these institutions.
Oligarchies of 411 and 404 BCE. Twice during the fifth
century the Athenian democracy was suspended for brief pe-
riods in favor of rule by an oligarchy. In 411 BCE, with the
Peloponnesian War going badly for the Athenians, a cabal of
aristocrats persuaded the Assembly to modify the constitu-
tion so that control would be exercised by a group of 400
men. The modification was sold with the promise that it
would bring the Persians into the war on the side of the
Athenians. The oligarchy lasted less than a year, being re-
placed by a restored democracy.
The Athenians also suffered under oligarchic rule in 404
BCE, when the Spartans, after defeating them in the Pelo-
ponnesian War, installed a pro-Spartan regime called the
Thirty Tyrants. The Thirty eliminated the democratic consti-
tution by repealing the laws of Ephialtes, restoring powers to
the Areopagos, and taking the government into their own
hands. The rule of the Thirty was characterized by mass exe-
cutions and banishment of political opponents. Democratic
exiles assembled an army, marched against Athens, and won
some victories. Negotiations led to the resumption of the de-
mocracy in 403 BCE.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 13

This experience with oligarchic rule had a lasting effect on

the Athenians, strongly disposing them against any weaken-
ing of the democracy.

V. STRUCTURE OF THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

The Athenian democracy, in its structures, institutions,
and procedures, was radically different from our own system
of representative democracy. To list some of the most strik-
ing features: most public officials were selected by lot; most
could serve a single, one-year term, or two such terms non-
consecutively; juries sat in panels that usually ranged from
200 to 500 in size; and final legislative authority lay in a
body consisting of the entire citizen population, rather than
a representative body.
However, if we step back from the particular institutions
of the two systems, and look at the underlying themes moti-
vating the creation of those institutions, we can see some
commonalities. Both systems aimed to vest ultimate power
in the citizens; to prevent overreaching by public officials
and subversion of the democracy; to give public officials an
incentive to perform for the benefit of the community; to cre-
ate a stable constitutional structure; and to implement the
rule of law. What is fascinating, and what the following dis-
cussion will illustrate, is how differently the two systems
went about implementing similar sets of goals through con-
stitutional structures.

A. CITIZENSHIP AND THE FRANCHISE

In Athens the right to participate in the political9 life of the
polis was limited to what we would consider a narrow seg-
ment of the population. Participation was restricted to free
adult (18 or older) male citizens, thus excluding women,

9 The word “political” derives from the Greek “politēs,” meaning “citi-
zen,” or literally “one who is a member of the polis.” The root meaning of
“political” is therefore that which concerns the affairs of the polis.
14 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

resident aliens, and slaves. In practice, this limited partici-

pation to perhaps 10-20 percent of the population. In 451
BCE, Pericles introduced a law further limiting participation,
by providing that one was an Athenian citizen only if both of
one’s parents were citizens; previously it was enough if one’s
father was a citizen. A person’s citizenship was determined
by reference to the Assembly List of his deme.
A citizen could lose the right to political participation as a
punishment for certain offenses, such as owing a debt to the
public treasury, prostitution, beating or failing to support his
father or mother, throwing away his shield in battle, or
squandering his inheritance.
In view of how limited was the franchise, one might legiti-
mately question whether the Athenian system is appropri-
ately characterized as a democratic one: would a system in
which all political power is held by one-tenth of those subject
to that power not be more accurately described as an oligar-
chy (since this was rule by a few), or aristocracy (since citi-
zenship was hereditary, and was rarely conferred on outsid-
ers)? The accusation has some bite; but before dismissing
the Athenian democracy as a sham, we should consider that
a similar objection could be brought against our own consti-
tutional system at the time of its founding. In 1790, the total
population of the United States was 3.9 million, of which
about 700,000 were slaves, not entitled to vote. Nor were
women allowed to vote at that time.10 Most states also im-
posed minimum property qualifications on white males, with
the result that only 60-70 percent of them could vote. Thus,
the franchise was limited to perhaps 25 percent of the adult
population—not as extreme as in Athens, but still far short
of universal suffrage.

10New Jersey was a temporary exception: its 1776 constitution gave

women the right to vote, but an 1807 amendment took away that right.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 15

B. THE COUNCIL OF 500

1. MEMBERSHIP AND PAY

The Council (sometimes called the Council of 500, to dis-
tinguish it from the Council of the Areopagos), consisted of
500 citizens, at least thirty years old, who were appointed by
lot, fifty from each of the ten tribes. Council members served
a one-year term. A person could serve only twice in his life-
time, and not in two successive years. The size of the Coun-
cil, combined with the term limitation, meant that a large
proportion of the citizen population served on the Council at
some point—perhaps one-third of all citizens over 18, and
two-thirds of those over 40. Council members were paid for
their service, receiving five obols a day by the middle of the
fourth century.11 Incoming members were subject to an ex-
amination for fitness (called dokimasia12) by the outgoing
Council.

2. ADMINISTRATION OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

The year was divided into ten time periods, each consist-
ing of 35 or 36 days, called prytanies. During each prytany,
the fifty Councilors from one of the ten tribes took their turn
serving as the Council’s steering committee. These individu-
als were known as the prytaneis (sing. prytanis; often trans-
lated as “president” in the sense of “one who presides”). The
duties of the prytaneis included convening meetings of the
Council each day (excepting public holidays) and setting the
agenda for each meeting.13 Each day one of the prytaneis
was chosen by lot to be epistatēs (plur. epistatai; sometimes
translated as “chairman”). This is a position that one could
hold only once in a lifetime. The epistatēs would preside over
the Council’s meetings.

11 On comparative levels of pay, see below at p. 17, n.15.

12 On dokimasia, see below at p. 34.
13 The prytaneis also had the job of convening the Assembly, as re-
quired. On the Assembly, see below at p. 17.
16 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

3. FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

The most significant of the Council’s functions was in
connection with legislation. The Council served as the initial
forum for discussion of proposed legislation. Legislation
might be proposed by a member of the Council, by an indi-
vidual citizen, or by the Assembly. The Council would dis-
cuss such proposals, and decide which ones to place on the
agenda of the Assembly, in the form of preliminary motions
called probouleumata. It was not lawful for the Assembly to
enact a piece of legislation that had not first been considered
by the Council.
A range of executive and administrative duties were per-
formed by subcommittees of the Council. The subcommittees
usually consisted of ten citizens chosen by lot. Among these
were the ten euthynoi (sometimes translated as “public audi-
tors”), who reviewed each public official’s handling of his of-
fice at the end of his term, and the ten logistai (“public ac-
countants”), who checked the accounts of all officials who
handled public money each prytany.
The Council handled diplomatic relations between Athens
and other states. The epistatēs of the day, and the prytaneis
(probably each serving an eight-hour shift), had to be pre-
sent and on duty each day at a building called the Tholos,
ready to deal with any emergent issues. Envoys from other
states, and messengers bearing official letters, would present
themselves to these officials at the Tholos. The Council was
also responsible for collecting the payments that Athens ex-
tracted from its subject poleis during its imperial period.
The Council had a limited judicial role, hearing eisangelia
(a type of impeachment) prosecutions.14

14 On eisangelia, see below at p. 34.

INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 17

C. THE ASSEMBLY
The Assembly was the ultimate repository of legislative au-
thority.

1. MEMBERSHIP, ATTENDANCE, AND PAY

The membership of the Assembly consisted of all adult
male citizens who were not subject to disfranchisement. The
Assembly met on the Pnyx, a hill near the Acropolis, in the
open air. The number of citizens attending the meetings is
uncertain, but some say it was usually about 6,000. Starting
in the 390s BCE, citizens were paid for their attendance.15

2. FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
The Assembly normally met about forty times a year, four
times in each prytany. During each prytany there would be
one general session, called the Principal Assembly, and three
other meetings. Particular topics of discussion were assigned
to particular meetings. For example, according to Aristotle,
in the Principal Assembly
the people have to ratify the continuance of the magistrates
in office, if they are performing their duties properly, and to
consider the supply of corn and the defense of the country.
On this day, too, impeachments are introduced by those who
wish to do so, the lists of property confiscated by the state
are read, and also applications for inheritances and wards of
state, so that nothing may pass unclaimed without the cog-
nizance of any person concerned.16
Additional meetings could be scheduled as required. For ex-
ample, in 427 BCE, during the Peloponnesian War, the As-

15 The pay was originally one obol per day, which rose to three obols

by 393 BCE, and 1 or 1½ drachmas by the 320s (there were six obols in
a drachma). By comparison, at the end of the fifth century a laborer
earned one drachma a day, and in the fourth century 1½ drachmas. By
the end of the fourth century, a skilled laborer could earn 2½ drachmas.
The level of pay for attending meetings of the Assembly was thus not
munificent—something like working at Wal-Mart for minimum wage to-
day.
16 Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 45.4.
18 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

sembly voted to punish the Mytileneans, who had revolted

against Athenian authority, by killing the adult males and
enslaving the women and children. As Thucydides records:
The morrow brought repentance with it and reflection on the
horrid cruelty of a decree, which condemned a whole city to
the fate merited only by the guilty. [The Mytilenean ambas-
sadors at Athens] moved the authorities to put the question
again to the vote; which they the more easily consented to
do, as they themselves plainly saw that most of the citizens
wished some one to give them an opportunity for reconsider-
ing the matter. An assembly was therefore at once called . . .
.17

3. PROCEDURE
Assembly meetings were presided over by a group of ten
officials, which changed each day, and were selected by lot
so that there would be a representative from each of the ten
tribes.
The agenda of each meeting was published in advance by
the Council of 500. The agenda consisted of the motions that
would be introduced at the meeting. The motions were of two
types. There were specific motions, which consisted of bills
that were proposed for enactment, and open motions, which
were issues for discussion but not including a recommenda-
tion. A specific motion would be read out to the Assembly,
and then immediately voted upon. If the vote was unani-
mous, it would be enacted. If there was at least one vote op-
posed, there would be discussion, during which participants
could offer amendments or alternatives, followed by a final
vote. The open motions would likewise be read, and would be
discussed and voted upon.

17 Thuc. 3.36. In a close vote, the second Assembly decided to rescind

the order. A galley was dispatched with all speed, attempting to overtake
the ship that had been sent the day before to deliver the order containing
the death sentence. The rowers ate their meals while rowing to save time,
and, spurred on by the promise of rewards from the ambassadors if they
arrived in time, reached Mytilene just after the death sentence had been
proclaimed but before it was carried out. Thuc. 3.49.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 19

All those attending an Assembly meeting enjoyed an equal

right to speak, with no differentiation based on social status.
But any speaker ran the risk of being shouted down if his
speech did not please the audience. This seems not to have
been an uncommon occurrence, as many of the preserved
speeches include a request that the audience not interrupt
the speaker.18
Voting was generally by a show of hands, but some votes
were conducted by secret ballot.

4. LAWS AND DECREES

Starting in the late fifth century, the enactments of the
Assembly were of two types: laws (nomoi) and decrees
(psēphismata). Laws were those enactments which
established a general rule, while decrees were those which
called for a specific action to be taken in a particular case.
For example, one forensic oration refers to a law that
permitted the Assembly to enact a decree honoring a citizen
with a crown.19
5. MAKING AND CHANGING THE LAWS: NOMOTHESIA
Decrees could be made and amended by the Assembly
through the ordinary procedures described above. But, start-
ing in 403 BCE, with restoration of the democracy after the
regime of the Thirty Tyrants, laws could be added or

18 Plato has Socrates make such a request in his own defense speech
before a jury court: “And I must beg of you to grant me one favor, which
is this—If you hear me using the same words in my defense which I have
been in the habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the
agora, and at the tables of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I
would ask you not to be surprised at this, and not to interrupt me.” Plat.,
Apol. 17c-17d.
19 Aeschin. 3.36. A forensic oration is a speech written for delivery by

a litigant before a jury court. The citation refers to a speech written by

Aeschines, one of the ten Athenian writers of forensic orations whose
works have been preserved. The law speeches (and many other classical
works) can be found at Perseus, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.
20 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

amended only by following a special procedure, called nomo-

thesia.
Nomothesia worked as follows. A new law might be pro-
posed by any citizen. Any proposal to modify an existing law
had to be accompanied by a proposed replacement law. The
citizen making the proposal had to publish it advance: publi-
cation consisted of writing the proposal on a whitened board
located next to the statues of the Eponymous Heroes20 in the
agora. The pro-
posal would be
considered by the
Council, and
would be placed
on the agenda of
the Assembly in
the form of a mo-
tion. If the As-
sembly voted in
favor of the pro-
posed change, the
Reconstruction of statutes of the proposal would be
Eponymous heroes referred for fur-
ther consideration
by a group of citi-
zens called nomothetai (literally “establishers of the law”).
The nomothetai were selected by lot from among that
year’s pool of 6,000 jurors.21 The number of nomothetai se-
lected varied, and could be large: on one occasion a group of
1,001 was said to have been selected. The proceeding before
the nomothetai was conducted like a trial. Five citizens (pre-
viously selected by the Assembly) would speak in defense of
the existing laws, while others would speak for the proposed

20The Eponymous Heroes were those legendary heroes of Athens after

whom the ten Athenian tribes were named.
21 On the jury pool, see below at p. 23.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 21

amendment. The nomothetai voted by a show of hands, and

if the amendment was approved it became law.
There were two other routes to initiating a modification of
the laws. The Assembly, at its first meeting of the year, con-
ducted a review of the laws. If a majority voted to change any
of the laws, the proposal was referred for a hearing before
the nomothetai as described above. Similarly, beginning in
the mid-fourth century the thesmothetai were required to re-
view the laws each year, and to refer any proposed changes
to the nomothetai.
The procedure of nomothesia, in combination with the dis-
tinction between laws and decrees, might be thought of as
an implementation of the concept of constitutional law as a
higher, and more stable, law than ordinary legislation. Laws
were like constitutional rules, and decrees were like ordinary
legislation, in that (1) it was impermissible for a decree to
contradict a law, and (2) the procedure for making or amend-
ing a law was deliberately more cumbersome than that for
revising a decree.

6. “JUDICIAL REVIEW” VIA GRAPHĒ PARANOMŌN

The Athenian constitution included rules that made the
proposal of a law illegal in certain circumstances. One such
set of circumstances derives from the procedure of nomothe-
sia described above. It was unconstitutional to propose a
new law contradicting an existing one without publishing the
proposal in advance, or to propose a law before the Assembly
without first passing it through the Council. It was likewise
unconstitutional to propose a decree that conflicted with an
existing law. A decree was also deemed unconstitutional if it
was proposed by a person who had been deprived of his citi-
zenship rights.
The procedure used to challenge a law or decree as un-
constitutional was called graphē paranomōn, which means
22 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

“prosecution for being against the law.” A graphē paranomōn

could be initiated, by any citizen,22 either after the law or de-
cree was enacted or while it was under consideration. In the
latter case, the prosecutor’s sworn statement that he in-
tended to initiate a graphē paranomōn would bring the As-
sembly’s consideration of a proposed law or decree to a halt.
The challenge consisted of a trial before an ordinary jury
court, consisting of 500 jurors or more.
If the court decided that the measure was unconstitu-
tional, it was declared invalid, and the proposer of the meas-
ure was fined. A man who was convicted three times of pro-
posing an unconstitutional law or decree was punished with
loss of his citizen rights—an indication of how serious a vio-
lation it was considered.
If the court decided that the measure was constitutional,
it gained the status of an enactment, even if the Assembly
had never approved it. This is a striking example of what we
would consider a violation of the principle of separation of
powers: the court, whose job it is to interpret the laws, was in
this circumstance responsible for enacting a law. For the
Athenians, however, this posed no problem, since the courts
were conceived of as representing the entire demos (“the
people” or “the community”) and therefore could legitimately
exercise ultimate power in all spheres.
During the oligarchies of 411 and 404 BCE, the graphē
paranomōn was suspended, confirming its status as a bul-
wark of the rule of law and of the democracy.

D. THE JURY COURTS

The third principal institution of the Athenian democracy
was the jury court. Before the reforms of Ephialtes in the
mid-fifth century, the court consisted of the entire Assembly,
sitting as a court to hear appeals from decisions by magis-

22 On initiation of prosecutions by private citizens, see below at p. 25.

INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 23

trates, and was called the Heliaea. After those reforms, when
the court became open to many types of lawsuits, the Heli-
aea was reconstituted as a group of jury courts, each of
which sat to hear individual cases. There may have been up
to ten jury courts in session on any given day.

Reconstruction of a pair of kleroteria

1. SELECTION OF JURORS
At the beginning of each year 6,000 jurors were enrolled
from among those who volunteered, probably 600 from each
tribe.23 Jurors had to be male citizens at least 30 years old,
not subject to disfranchisement, and not in debt to the state.

23 The Greek term translated as “jurors,” dikastai, could with equal

accuracy be rendered as “judges.” Dikastai shared some of the character-
istics of our jurors (they were laypeople who sat in judgment at a particu-
24 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

Each day, jurors were selected from among those in the

jury pool who presented themselves for service, as many as
were needed to man whatever courts were in session. The
size of jury panels was very large by our standards, ranging
from 200 up to 500 or more; one particularly significant gra-
phē paranomōn is recorded as being judged by 6,000 jurors!
Jurors were picked through a random selection process
designed to make it difficult to bribe jurors. During the
course of the democracy the juror-selection process went
through several iterations, becoming progressively more in-
sulated against tampering. Starting early in the fourth cen-
tury, jurors were selected through a complex procedure that
made use of a juror-selection machine called a kleroterion,
which involved arranging tokens representing each of the
prospective jurors in an array of rows and columns, and us-
ing a random method of selecting some rows of tokens for
that day’s juries. The jurors thus selected were allocated
randomly among the courts in session that day.

2. JURORS’ PAY
Pay for jurors was introduced around 450 BCE upon the
motion of Pericles. Initially set at two obols per day, in the
420s the pay was raised to three obols, at which level it re-
mained through the end of the democracy. Payment at this
level would not have been very attractive to those with other
employment opportunities.24 Aristophanes’ comedy The
Wasps (written 422 BCE), which centers around an elderly
Athenian who is addicted to jury service, suggests that ju-
rors were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the indigent
elderly. Other evidence suggests that the jury pool also in-
cluded men who were well-off (and so did not care about the

lar trial), and some of judges (they were the ultimate authority as to the
law).
24 On comparative levels of pay, see p. 17, n.15, above.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 25

pay), as well as farmers in the off season, but that those en-
gaged in trade or in the crafts were underrepresented.

3. APPEALS
There was no appeal from the judgment of a jury court.
The jury, like the Assembly, was considered to represent the
entire demos: this is indicated by the fact that litigants ad-
dressing a jury routinely use the second person plural,
“you,” when referring to an action taken by the Assembly.
Thus in one case, a defendant charged with homicide for kill-
ing a man he caught in flagrante delicto with his wife de-
fended on the ground that the law permitted, and even re-
quired, extrajudicial execution in such a circumstance. The
defendant explained to the court that the man had offered to
pay him compensation in lieu of suffering death, but the de-
fendant declined the offer:
But I would not agree to his proposed penalty, as I held that
our city’s law should have higher authority; and I obtained
that satisfaction which you deemed most just when you im-
posed it on those who adopt such courses.25
Since the jury represented the demos, there was no higher
authority to which to appeal.

4. INITIATING A LAWSUIT
Almost all cases were initiated by private parties, not by a
public prosecutor, including those involving serious crimes
like murder. Some types of cases could be brought only by
the victim; others, by any citizen.
Litigation was initiated when the plaintiff served a sum-
mons on the defendant, before witnesses. The summons
called upon the defendant to appear before a magistrate on a
specified date. At this initial meeting, the plaintiff would pre-
sent his charge. If the magistrate accepted the charge, he
would set a date for a preliminary hearing, called anakrisis.

25 Lysias 1.29 (emphasis added).

26 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

Not much is known about what occurred at the anakrisis. It

may have served to clarify the issues through the magis-
trate’s questioning of the witnesses. At the end of the anakri-
sis, a date was set for trial.

5. CONDUCT OF TRIALS
The Athenian trial consisted primarily of the speeches
given by the litigants and witness statements read by the
court clerk. The plaintiff spoke first, and then the defendant.
Speeches were nearly always delivered by the litigants them-
selves. There was no possibility of having one’s speech pre-
sented by a professional, though in some circumstances,
such as if the litigant were young or inexperienced, a close
friend or relative could deliver a supporting speech.
Although litigants generally delivered their own speeches,
the speech could be written by somebody else. Professional
speech writers, called “logographers,” were skilled in writing
trial speeches and knew what rhetorical strategies were most
likely to persuade an Athenian jury. Nevertheless, speeches
were delivered in the first person, and a litigant never made
reference to the fact that he had not written the speech. It is
not known whether speeches were read out in court, or were
recited from memory.
Prior to about 380 BCE witness testimony was presented
orally. After that time, witnesses no longer gave live testi-
mony in court. Instead, a litigant prepared a written witness
statement in advance of the trial. The court clerk read the
statement at the point in the litigant’s speech when it was
called for, and the witness affirmed that the testimony was
truthful.
Adult male citizens, resident aliens, and freedmen could
be witnesses. It appears, however, that women and children
could not offer testimony. Slaves were permitted to testify,
but only if the testimony were taken under torture. The
(rather dubious) rationale for this rule was that a slave be-
longing to the litigant was unlikely to testify against his mas-
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 27

ter, unless the punishment for lying was greater than the
punishment that he would expect from his master.
Trials in ancient Athens had to be completed within one
day. The litigants’ speeches were limited to a certain length
of time, the same for each side, and were timed using a wa-
ter clock called a klepsudra.
The presiding magistrate was not like a modern-day judge.
First, the magistrates were laymen, selected by lot to serve in
the position for a single year, without any specific training or
legal knowledge. Second, the magistrate could not dismiss a
case on legal grounds or set out the issues to be decided by
the jury. Also, a magistrate did not hear objections or stop
litigants from introducing irrelevant material at trial.
In the fourth century BCE, jurors delivered their votes by
dropping bronze voting tokens into voting urns. Each juror
had two voting tokens, one with a hollow tube through the

Bronze voting tokens

middle, the other with a solid tube. A hollow tube meant a

vote for the plaintiff, a solid one a vote for the defendant.
There were two voting urns: one for tokens that would be
counted, the other for discarded tokens. Each juror would
walk past the two urns, dropping one token in one urn and
one in the other. By holding his fingers over the ends of the
tubes, he could keep his vote secret. Ballot counters would
count the tokens in the urn for valid votes. The majority of
votes decided the verdict, and an equal number of votes
meant acquittal.
28 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

Jurors voted immediately after completion of the speeches.

There was no instruction by a judge, and no deliberation
among the jurors.

6. NONJUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JURY COURTS

In addition to their judicial function of hearing trials, the
jury courts had some other important functions in the de-
mocracy.
It was the courts that conducted the dokimasia (scrutiny
for fitness for office) of most magistrates, and that made the
final determination in dokimasiai of archons and Council
members.26
The courts also heard prosecutions resulting from eisan-
gelia (impeachment) and apophasis (investigatory report)
procedures.27 While these were formally trials, they were of-
ten invoked against politically active individuals. Since the
courts represented the entire demos,28 a trial of this sort
might be considered more a political than a judicial act.
A graphē paranomōn29 was also formally a trial, but cast
the court in a legislative role. This is because if the chal-
lenged law was found to be constitutional, it was deemed to
be enacted even if the Assembly had not voted on it.

E. THE AREOPAGOS

1. MEMBERSHIP
The Council of the Areopagos—the name means “Hill of
Mars,” and designates the location where it met—consisted
of all archons who had completed their term of office. In con-
trast to all other officeholders, who were limited to a one-

26 On dokimasia, see below at p. 34.

27 On eisangelia, see below at p. 34; on apophasis, p. 36.
28 See p. 25, above.
29 On graphē paranomōn, see above at p. 21.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 29

year term, membership on the Areopagos was for life—a

holdover from pre-democratic times. The membership con-
sisted probably of 100-200 men.

2. FUNCTIONS
In pre-democratic times, the Areopagos had broad-ranging
authority in Athens. According to Aristotle, the Areopagos
was then “guardian of the laws, and kept watch over the
magistrates to see that they executed their offices in accor-
dance with the laws.”30
After the reforms of Ephialtes in the mid-fifth century,
which stripped the (undemocratic) Areopagos of most of its
authorities, the principal duty of the Areopagos was to try
cases of intentional homicide. This body also heard cases of
assault and wounding, and those involving certain types of
sacrilege.
In addition to holding trials, the Areopagos could be called
upon, by either the Council or the Assembly, to conduct an
investigation into a possible offense and make a report
(called apophasis31) of its findings. Based on the report, the
Assembly might decide that the subject of the investigation
should be prosecuted. If so, it passed a decree setting out
the details of the trial. The apophasis procedure was most
often used to investigate the conduct of public officials.

F. MAGISTRATES
“Magistrate” is the usual translation of the term that is
used to designate a range of public officials. All magistrates
held some sort of judicial function, such as introducing
cases into court, and presiding over trials. Magistrates could
also impose fines of up to 50 drachmas for violation of laws
within their jurisdiction. For example, the Eponymous Ar-
chon, a magistrate who was responsible for organizing the

30 Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 4.4.

31 On apophasis, see below at p. 36.
30 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

annual Dionysia festival, could impose fines on those who

behaved improperly at the festival.
All magistrates, other than the strategoi and other military
officers, were chosen by lot. All held office for a one-year
term.

1. THE NINE ARCHONS

The nine archons32 consisted of the Eponymous Archon,
the King Archon, the Polemarch,33 and six thesmothetai.34
Starting in the first half of the fifth century, they were se-
lected by lot, and held office for one year. A man could serve
as archon only once in his life. Incoming archons were sub-
ject to dokimasia by the Council.
The archons handled the pretrial phase of legal cases,
each category of archon being responsible for cases of a par-
ticular subject matter, and presided over the trials within
their jurisdiction. For example, the Eponymous Archon han-
dled cases having to do with property and family matters,
such as inheritance, guardianship of orphans, and division
of common property.
The archons also had certain executive responsibilities.
For example, the King Archon handled most of the religious
functions of the former kings, including management of the
Mysteries, supervising the Lenaian Dionysia and other an-
cestral festivals, and overseeing land dedicated to the gods.
The Eponymous Archon exercised general oversight over or-

32 “Arkhōn” means “leader” or “ruler.”

33 “Polemarchos” means “leader in war.”
34 “Thesmothetai” means “those who establish the laws.”
The terminology is confusing. All nine of these officials were called ar-
chons. The head archon was called the Archon, or the Eponymous Ar-
chon (because the year in which he served was referred to by his name).
The other archon who was not a thesmothetes and not the Polemarch
was called the King Archon.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 31

phans, heiresses,35 and widows who claimed to be pregnant

by their dead husbands. He also managed dramatic contests
and the allotment of liturgies.36
After their year of service, the nine archons became mem-
bers of the Areopagos, on which they served for life.

2. THE ELEVEN
The board of magistrates called The Eleven were primarily
executive officers, in charge of the prisons and executions.
They also had some judicial functions. If a person was
caught in the act of engaging in certain types of crimes, in-
cluding theft, kidnapping, burglary, and pickpocketing, he
could be brought before the Eleven; and if he admitted his
guilt, the Eleven could summarily execute him, without a
trial. (This seems like an excellent occasion on which to take
the Fifth.) If he claimed innocence, he was entitled to a trial
before a jury court, with the Eleven presiding.

3. ASTYNOMOI
There were five astynomoi for Athens, and five for Piraeus
(the port of Athens). They were responsible for cleanliness
and order in the streets. They enforced miscellaneous regula-
tions, such as the rules that flute girls may not be hired for
more than two drachmas, that dung collectors may not de-
posit dung within ten stades of the city wall, and that a
householder may not build over the street. They also col-
lected dead bodies from the streets.

35 “Heiress” is the conventional translation of a term that refers to an

brotherless woman whose father has died and who has no male issue. An
heiress could be “claimed” in marriage by a male relative, as a means of
keeping property in the family.
36 A “liturgy” was a service performed by a wealthy individual, at his

own expense, for the benefit of the public. Each year a number of indi-
viduals (perhaps one hundred each year) would be appointed to perform
such services. Common types of liturgies were funding a dramatic per-
formance, and outfitting a warship.
32 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

4. AGORANOMOI
The agoranomoi (five for Athens, and five for Piraeus) su-
pervised commercial activity in the marketplace (the agora).
They dealt with false advertising, sale of adulterated goods,
public order in the agora, and possibly price regulation.
Other more specialized officials regulated the retail grain
trade, the wholesale grain trade, and weights and measures
in the marketplace.

The Athenian agora, in its prime

5. LOGISTAI AND EUTHYNOI

The logistai and the euthynoi were magistrates with vari-
ous auditing functions, described more fully below.

6. THE TEN STRATEGOI

The strategoi (“generals”) were the military commanders.
Ten were elected each year, one from each of the tribes—an
exception to the general rule that public officials were se-
lected by lot. Unlike the archons and Council members, they
could be reelected any number of times: Pericles in his hey-
day held the office for fifteen years continuously.
The strategoi had command over military forces in the
field. At one time this included the authority to sentence a
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 33

soldier to death summarily, but by the mid-fourth century

they could only remand an errant soldier into custody or im-
pose a fine. The strategoi also had military responsibilities
within the polis, including enrolment of soldiers, designation
of wealthy citizens required to outfit
warships for the navy, and presiding
over trials of those accused of desertion
and evasion of military service. Several
categories of subordinate military offi-
cers were also elected, including ten
taxiarchs, who commanded the tribal
contingents of hoplites, and two hip-
parchs, who commanded the cavalry.
The strategoi are considered to have Pericles
been the most influential of the magis-
trates. Their enhanced status derived from the facts that
they alone among the magistrates were elected, and they
could be reelected any number of times.

VI. METHODS OF CONSTRAINING THE POWER OF PUBLIC

OFFICIALS
A perennial difficulty for democratic constitutions is the
need to assign public officials sufficient power to accomplish
the objectives of government, while at the same time prevent-
ing them from exceeding their assigned powers in a way that
would detrimentally affect the liberties of the people. The fear
of tyranny permeated the debates over ratification of the U.S.
Constitution in 1787-88, and was the principal concern of
the antifederalists. Our Constitution employs several struc-
tural devices designed to prevent overreaching by public offi-
cials, chief among them being democratic accountability,
confinement of the federal government to enumerated pow-
ers, federalism, protection of individual rights, and separa-
tion of powers.
The Athenians, having experienced the tyranny of the
Peisistratids in the late sixth century, and having seen their
34 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

democracy twice subverted (albeit briefly) at the end of the

fifth century, were likewise concerned to constrain the power
of public officials. When reading the following, consider to
what extent the Athenian constitution resembled ours in this
respect, and to what extent it differed.

A. DOKIMASIA
Any citizen selected by lot or election to a public office had
to undergo dokimasia (“examination” or “scrutiny”) before
taking office. This was an examination for the formal qualifi-
cations for office, such as citizenship, age, and whether the
candidate had held the office previously so as to be ineligible.
For most magistrates, dokimasia was conducted by a jury
court, presided over by one of the thesmothetai. Those se-
lected as archons and Councilors had first to undergo doki-
masia by the Council. Aristotle’s reconstruction of the ques-
tions asked in a dokimasia is as follows:
When they are examined, they are asked, first, “Who is your
father, and of what deme? who is your father’s father? who is
your mother? who is your mother’s father, and of what
deme?” Then the candidate is asked whether he possesses an
ancestral Apollo and a household Zeus, and where their
sanctuaries are; next if he possesses a family tomb, and
where; then if he treats his parents well, and pays his taxes,
and has served on the required military expeditions.37
Anybody who wished could make an accusation against
the candidate, who could speak in his own defense. The jury
or Council then voted to accept or reject him. If the candi-
date was rejected, he did not incur any punishment, but was
merely excluded from the office.

B. EISANGELIA
Eisangelia was a sort of impeachment procedure, which
was used principally against public officials.38 It could be

37 Ath. Pol. 55.3.

38 It could also be used against orators who were bribed to mislead the
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 35

brought at any time rather than, as with euthyna,39 only at

the end of the official’s term of office. An eisangelia could be
initiated in either of two ways. First, it could be presented to
the Council, which would render a preliminary verdict and
could refer the matter to a court for trial. Second, an eisan-
gelia could be brought directly before the Assembly, which
would decide whether to hear the case itself, or to refer it to
a court.
As an indication of the importance that the eisangelia pro-
cedure occupied in the democracy, the normal rule that the
prosecutor of a public case (who was a private citizen) was
subject to a fine of 1,000 drachmas if he failed to win the
votes of at least one-fifth of the jurors was not applied to
cases brought via eisangelia.

C. EPIKHEIROTONIA
At the first (Principal) meeting of the Assembly each pry-
tany, there was a vote on whether public officials were per-
forming their duties well, in a procedure called epikheirotonia
(“voting by a show of hands”). If the vote went against an of-
ficial, he was provisionally deposed from office, and he would
be tried before a jury court. If convicted, he would be re-
moved from the position, and might be fined, as was Pericles
in 430 BCE. If acquitted, the official would return to his of-
fice.

D. EUTHYNA
Euthyna was an examination of a public official that oc-
curred after he completed his term of office. It was applied to
all magistrates and the Council members, but not to jurors.
The examination consisted of two stages. First, there was
a review of the official’s handling of public money, to uncover
crimes such as embezzlement, accepting bribes, or causing

demos, and against any citizen who tried to overthrow the democracy.
39 On euthyna, see below on this page.
36 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

loss to the demos through neglect. The examination was

conducted by ten logistai, who were selected from the citi-
zens by lot.40 The logistai then brought the official before a
jury court, and invited anybody who wished to bring a
charge against him.
The second stage of euthyna was aimed at uncovering any
other sort of misconduct, such as neglect of duty or misuse
of power. It was conducted by the ten euthynoi, who were
members of the Council, one chosen by lot from each of the
ten tribes. The euthynoi sat in the agora, each next to the
statue of the Eponymous Hero corresponding to his tribe,
and accepted written charges against the official. If the
euthynoi thought any charge well founded, they passed it
along to the appropriate magistrate for trial.

E. APOPHASIS
In the mid-fourth century, the apophasis procedure was
introduced to allow the Areopagos to investigate possible of-
fenses. The Assembly could refer a matter to the Areopagos
for investigation, or the Areopagos could commence an in-
vestigation on its own initiative. The Areopagos made a re-
port (apophasis) of its findings to the Assembly, which would
decide whether a person should be prosecuted. If so, the As-
sembly passed a decree setting out the details of the trial.
The apophasis procedure could be used against both pri-
vate citizens and public officials. The best known example of
the use of this procedure was in the Harpalos affair, when it
led to the trial and conviction of the orator Demosthenes for
accepting a bribe from the treasurer of Alexander the Great.

40These were distinct from the logistai selected from the Council
members, discussed above at p. 16, who had a different function.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 37

VII. REVIEW QUESTIONS

; What political systems prevailed in Athens before the
democracy? What were the stages of progress towards de-
mocracy?
; What were the qualifications for political participation
in the democracy?
; Who were the members of the Council of 500? What
were the Council’s legislative, executive, and judicial func-
tions?
; Who were the members of the Assembly? How often
did the Assembly meet? What were the Assembly’s legisla-
tive, executive, and judicial functions?
; What was the procedure by which laws were enacted?
; What was the difference between a law and a decree?
What special procedure had to be followed to make a new
law?
; What procedure was available to challenge the consti-
tutionality of a law or decree?
; How were the jury courts constituted? What were the
judicial and the nonjudicial functions of the jury courts?
; By whom were lawsuits initiated and conducted?
; Who were the members of the Areopagos, and what
were its functions?
; What were the various categories of magistrates? How
were they selected? What were their powers?
; What were the judicial functions of the archons? What
were their executive functions?
; Which class of magistrates were popularly elected, and
were not subject to term limitations?
; What mechanisms did the Athenian system employ to
constrain the powers of public officials?
38 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

; Who were the prytaneis and epistatai, and what were

their duties?

VIII. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

[Institutions of the democracy]
? To what institution in our system does each of the Athe-
nian institutions most closely correspond? How does each
differ from its modern analogue?
? Are there any elements of the Athenian system that seem
to you bizarre or inexplicable?
? Many of the institutions of the Athenian government
served some combination of executive, legislative, and judi-
cial functions. Is this inconsistent with the concept of sepa-
ration of powers? Are there comparable overlaps in the cur-
rent U.S. system of government?
? Do you agree with the proposition that the jury courts
had an inherently political role, even when they were en-
gaged in hearing ordinary trials, inasmuch as (1) they con-
sisted of large numbers of jurors, so that they resembled the
political community as a whole more than a jury of one’s
peers; and (2) the jurors were not instructed by any judge,
and voted immediately after the conclusion of the trial, with-
out deliberating? Was the jury’s decision more an exercise of
political “will” than of “judgment.”41
[How democratic was the democracy?]
? All of the magistrates, other than the strategoi, were se-
lected by lot, and were limited to serving a single one-year
term. Council members could serve no more than two one-
year terms, nonconsecutively. In what respects was this
more democratic than our system of popular election of high

41 “The judiciary . . . may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor

WILL, but merely judgment . . . .” Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton).
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 39

government officials? In what respects less democratic?

What definition of “democratic” are you using?
? In what respects was the Council a democratic institu-
tion? In what respects undemocratic? What definition of
“democratic” are you using?
? In what respects was the Assembly more democratic than
our Congress? In what respects less? What definition of “de-
mocratic” are you using?
? Was the Areopagos an antidemocratic institution? Did it
belong under a democratic constitution?
? Do you think the Athenians would have objected to any
elements of the contemporary U.S. constitutional system as
undemocratic? Consider: (1) the electoral college; (2) selec-
tion of Senators by the state legislatures prior to adoption of
the 17th Amendment; (3) equal representation of the states
in the Senate; (4) the supermajority requirements for amend-
ing the Constitution; and (5) the Bill of Rights.
[Controlling government officials]
? What sorts of checks and balances did the Athenian sys-
tem incorporate?
? What aspects of federalism were present in the Athenian
system?
? What purposes do you think the Athenians hoped to
serve by their random selection of government officials, and
the accompanying term limitations?
? Why do you think the strategoi were elected, rather than
chosen by lot? Why was there no term limit for strategoi?
? Except as to strategoi, who were elected, the Athenian
system lacked the sort of democratic accountability that ex-
ists in our system through popular election of high political
officeholders. Was that lack of democratic accountability a
40 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

major flaw of the Athenian system? What mechanisms filled

the gap, and how effective do you suppose they were?
[Ancient Athens and modern conditions]
? Contemporary U.S. society is very different from classical
Athens. Are there any elements of the Athenian system of
government that you think could profitably be adopted into
our own system?
? Which elements of the Athenian system of government
are completely unsuited to modern conditions? Could ele-
ments of the Athenian model more plausibly been applied to
the United States as it was in 1787, than as it is now?
? Internet communications technology makes it feasible to
institute a system of direct democracy, in which legislation
would be enacted by the entire citizen body rather than by
representatives. Would this be an improvement over the cur-
rent system?
? Our system is a representative democracy; Athens was a
direct democracy. Does representative democracy result in
more competent decisionmaking? Recall Madison’s conten-
tion, in Federalist 10:
The effect of [introducing a representative system is] to
refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them
through the medium of a chosen body of citizens,
whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of
their country . . . . Under such a regulation, it may well
happen that the public voice, pronounced by the repre-
sentatives of the people, will be more consonant to the
public good than if pronounced by the people them-
selves, convened for the purpose.
[Sources of political power]
? How did a citizen gain political power in the Athenian
system? How does one gain political power in our system?
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 41

? Under the Athenian system was there more danger of

manipulation of political decisionmaking by demagogues
than under our system?

IX. GLOSSARY
Agora — The heart of Athens, the agora was a sort of market
square that provided a location where goods could be bought and
sold as well as a place for political and philosophical debates.
Agoranomoi — A group of magistrates who were responsible
for supervising commercial activity in the agora.
Apophasis (“report”) — A procedure under which the Areopa-
gos conducted an investigation of a public matter, and delivered a
report that might lead to a prosecution.
Archon (“leader” or “ruler”) — One of The Nine Archons, magis-
trates who exercised certain judicial and executive duties under
the democracy. They consisted of the Eponymous Archon (aka the
Archon), the King Archon, the Polemarch, and six thesmothetai.
Areopagos (“Hill of Mars”) — A body consisting of all archons
who had completed their term of office. Members served for life.
The Areopagos had limited functions under the democracy, but
exercised much greater powers under the pre-democratic systems.
Assembly — The Athenian legislative body, consisting of all
adult male citizens who were not subject to disfranchisement.
Astynomoi — A group of magistrates who were responsible for
cleanliness and order in the streets.
Attica — The territory within which Athens was situated.
Classical period — The period of Athenian history that ran
from 490 BCE (the first Persian invasion of Greece) until 323 BCE
(death of Alexander the Great). During this period the Athenian
democracy flourished, and Athens was at the height of its accom-
plishments.
Cleisthenes — An Athenian reformer who, in 507 BCE, took a
major step toward establishment of the democracy by reorganizing
the political structure so as to reduce the power of aristocratic
elements of society.
Council of 400 — The Council created by Solon.
Council of 500 — The Council created by Cleisthenes, which
replaced Solon’s Council of 400. It functioned throughout the pe-
42 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

riod of the Athenian democracy, and beyond.

Councilor — A member of the Council of 500.
Deme — A geographically based political unit, of which there
were 139 throughout Attica.
Demos (“the people” or “the community”) — The political com-
munity as a whole.
Dokimasia (“examination” or “scrutiny”) — Examination of a
person selected for public office, to determine whether he met the
formal qualifications of office.
Eisangelia — A sort of impeachment procedure, used princi-
pally against public officials.
Eleven, The — A board of magistrates who were in charge of
the prisons and executions.
Ephialtes — An Athenian reformer who, in 462 BCE, initiated a
series of reforms that led to the mature form of the democracy.
Epikheirotonia (“voting by a show of hands”) — A vote on
whether public officials were performing their duties well. A nega-
tive vote would result in deposition and trial of the disapproved
official.
Epistatēs (plur. epistatai) (“chairman”) — A man selected by lot
from among the prytaneis to serve, for one day, as presiding officer
at Council meetings and to be on 24-hour call in case of emer-
gency.
Eponymous Archon — One of the Nine Archons.
Euthyna — An examination of a public official that occurred af-
ter he completed his term of office. It consisted of two stages: ex-
amination by the logistai, followed by examination by the euthynoi.
Euthynoi (“public auditors”) — A ten-member subcommittee of
the Council, selected by lot, who reviewed each public official’s
handling of his office at the end of his term.
Graphē paranomōn (“prosecution for being against the law”) —
The procedure used to challenge a law or decree as unconstitu-
tional.
King Archon — One of the Nine Archons.
Logistai (“public accountants”) — (1) A ten-member subcom-
mittee of the Council, selected by lot, who checked the accounts of
all officials who handled public money each prytany. (2) Citizens,
INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 43

selected by lot, who reviewed the accounts of public officials at the

end of their term as part of the euthyna procedure.
Magistrate — Any of a range of public officials, including the
nine archons, the Eleven, astynomoi, agoranomoi, logistai,
euthynoi, and strategoi. All except the strategoi were selected by
lot, and served a single one-year term.
Nomothesia — The procedure for making or amending a law
(an enactment that established a general rule), more cumbersome
than the ordinary procedure for making or changing a decree (an
enactment that called for a specific action to be taken in a particu-
lar case).
Nomothetai (“establishers of the law”) — The group of citizens
selected by lot to determine whether a proposed law should be ac-
cepted.
Obol — A unit of money. There were six obols in a drachma.
Oligarchies of 411 and 404 BCE — Brief periods, each lasting
less than a year, during which the Athenian democracy was re-
placed by an oligarchic regime (rule by a narrow segment of soci-
ety).
Peisistratids — Peisistratos and his sons Hippias and Hip-
parchus, who seized power in Athens and ruled from 546 - 510
BCE.
Peloponnesian War — War between Athens and Sparta, 431 -
404 BCE. The Spartans won.
Persian Wars — Invasions of Greece by the Persian empire in
490 and 480 BCE, aimed at conquest. The Greeks, thanks largely
to Athenian leadership, repulsed the Persians on both occasions.
Polemarch (“leader in war”) — One of the Nine Archons.
Polis (pl. poleis) — The basic political unit of Greek-speaking
people during the classical period. This term is usually translated
as “city-state.” A polis had characteristics of both a city and a
country: it was the size of a city, in most cases what we would
consider a small city; but it had an autonomous political system,
like a country.
Prytaneis (sing. prytanis) (“president” in the sense of “one who
presides”) — The group of fifty Councilors from one of the ten
tribes who took their turn serving as the Council’s steering com-
mittee during a particular prytany.
Prytany — A time period consisting of one-tenth of the year, ei-
44 INTRODUCTION TO THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

ther 35 or 36 days.
Solon — An upper-class Athenian, appointed by the Athenians
in 594 BCE to reform the laws so as to moderate the strife be-
tween the wealthy and the poorer classes.
Strategoi (“generals”) — The chief military commanders of Ath-
ens. Ten were elected each year, one from each of the tribes.
Thesmothetai (“those who establish the laws”) — The six offi-
cials who, together with the Eponymous Archon, the King Archon,
and the Polemarch, made up the Nine Archons.
Thirty Tyrants — The brutal oligarchy that Sparta installed in
Athens in 404 BCE after Sparta’s victory in the Peloponnesian
War. The oligarchy gave way to a restored democracy within a
year.
Tribes, ten — The ten subdivisions of the Athenian population,
established by Cleisthenes in 507 BCE, and serving as political
units for various purposes under the democracy.