Athenian Democracy

In this essay, I will look at the Athenian constitution during the period in which it was a democracy. I will specifically be looking at the jury-court and the popular assembly. I will compare and contrast these two by looking at their relationship with the council of five hundred. I will specifically look at some of the jury-court and the assembly’s areas of interest and just how much influence it has in these areas. It also looks at the assembly's areas of interest and how much influence it had in these areas. I will then decide which of these two had the most political influence in Ancient Athens.

                                                                                                                                               

When reading Aristotle’s “The Athenian Constitution” one sees that the Council of five-hundred had quite a lot of power at first, but that later on a lot of the arias that were presided over by the council were shifted into the responsibility of the jury-court. Although the jury-court could strictly speak and not make any political decisions: seeing as this was the responsibility of the public assembly, they could still influence politics in another way. The law court almost acts as a counterbalance to the public assembly. In certain areas, they have certain responsibilities that allow them to make sure that the assembly and Athens’s officials remain within the bounds of the law.

                                                                                                                                               

Next, I will make use of a few examples to illustrate this point. The first of which is the conviction of those who break the law:

Formerly the counsel had full power to impose fines, to imprison and put to death… no citizen aught to be put to death except by the sentence of a jury-court… If the council convicted a man of wrongdoing or wanted to punish him, its conventions and punishments should be brought before the jury-court… and whatever the jurors' vote should be final. It is possible also for private citizens to make a denunciation against any official whom they wish, on a charge of not complying with the law. Aristotle 91

As one can see the council at first had full authority to convict and punish anyone for any crime at first, but later on that, that fell into the jurisdiction of the jury-court. In fact, as one can see no citizen was to be convicted by anyone except the jury-court. This potentially could have been a very powerful thing for the jury-court in the right situation. 

As one can see by reading the last sentence of this quote any citizen had the right to accuse an official of not complying with the law and that official would then have to be taken to the jury-court to be tried. This means that any officials and ultimately that council of five hundred were answerable to the jury-court. Thus, meaning that any officials had to make sure that they did not partake in any corrupt actions or anything otherwise unlawful, seeing as a simple denunciation from a citizen could send them to the jury-court where they will be tried.

In this way the jury-court ultimately had a little bit of power over the council of five hundred and thus also the public assembly. Seeing as they were in a role where they were able to make sure that officials stayed within the bounds of the law. As one can see the word of the jury is also final. Meaning that absolutely no one can overrule the jury-court. Although the jury-court could not make any decisions by itself, it could only approve or reject certain decisions made by the council.

                                                                                                                                               

The second example will look at the officials in ancient Athens:

The council has jurisdiction over most officials, especially those that handle money: its judgment is not final, but referable to the jury-court. Aristotle 91.

This is yet another example of how the council can make certain decisions, but that they are in fact answerable to the jury-court. Many of the things that the council wanted to do were referable to the jury-courts.

Let us look at how these masters were chosen:

All the officials concerned with civilian administration are appointed by lot, apart from the treasurer of the army fund, the men in charge of the festival fund, and the curator of the water supply: these are elected and hold office from the one Panathenaea to the next. Aristotle 89.

As one can see, most of the officials were chosen by lot. This meant that no one ultimately had any say in who was to be the officials. We do however see that the council had a say in who could not become officials:

The council holds a scrutiny of those who are to serve in the council for the following year and for the nine archons. Formally it had had full power to reject any of them, but now there is reference to the jury-court in these cases. Aristotle 91.

The council had the power to scrutinise anyone from becoming an official, however, as is the case once again, the jury-court has the ultimate say in whether or not someone is fit to become an official or not. As we can see there was a great deal of areas where the jury-court had the ultimate say and the jury-court could not be overruled under any circumstances.

We can however see that there were areas where the jury-court did not have any jurisdiction at all. Before we look into this further let us first look at the relationship between the council and the assembly: “They prescribe the meetings of the assembly.” Aristotle 90

It is the council’s busyness to preside over the assembly’s meetings as well as to decide what matters shall be discussed. It then is up to the assembly how these particular matters are to be resolved. As one can see the relationship between the council and the assembly is somewhat different than the relationship between the council and the jury-court. The assembly can only address matters that are given to it by the council. This could potentially put the council in quite a powerful position seeing as they decide which matters to present the assembly with. Although of course, they cannot decide what the assembly will do with these matters.

The difference is in their jurisdiction. The jury-court has jurisdiction over different matters than the assembly. To assess the influence of the I would use one example. I would specifically be looking at Athens’s military. The assembly seems to have full control over the Athenian military. First, let us see what Aristotle has to say about decisions made about the Athenian navy:

The council is responsible for the triremes that have already been built, and the equipment of the ship-sheds; and it has new triremes or quadriremes built, whichever the people decide and equip the ship sheds for them. The people elect designers for the ships. Aristotle 92

As one can see the council has some administrative powers over the navy, but the decisions of how many ships there should be and who should build them ultimately fall to the assembly. The same bodes true for the Athenian land force:

All the military officers are elected. The ten generals were formally from each tribe,   but now are appointed from the whole citizen body… There is a vote of confidence in the generals each prytany, to decide whether they are performing their duties well. If a man is deposed he is tried in the jury-court. Aristotle 106

Here we can once again see that the public assembly has quite a lot of power over the Athenian military. There is also something quite interesting that we see here. The assembly does not have the right to prosecute a general if that general has failed to do his job satisfactorily. Despite the fact that they have the power to dispose of a general they still have to refer him to the jury-court. This is a clear example of what the relationship between the jury-court and the assembly would have been like.

                                                                                                                                               

As an example of just how much power the assembly can have over the military, I will now give an example from Thucydides’ work. In this case, the city of Mytilene has chosen to break from Athenian rule. The Athenians then had to decide what to this city and in a fit of rage the public assembly decided that the male population should be exterminated and that the women and children should be sold into slavery:

They then decided what was to be done with the other prisoners and, in their angry mood, decided to put to death not only those now in their hands, but also the entire adult population of Mytilene, and to make slaves of the women and children. Thucydides 212

This is a good example of how much power the assembly could have over the Athenian military. At a mere whim, the assembly decided to exterminate one part of an entire city’s population and sell the rest into slavery and there was no one to stop them from making this decision.

                                                                                                                                               

I believe that the assembly and the jury court had more or less the same amount of power, concerning matters that were close to home. I say this is because of the rule that no citizen is to be convicted by anyone else, but a jury-court. This allowed the jury-court to check the assembly and the council of five hindered. This means that in home matters the assembly and the jury-court had more or less equal amounts of power. This rule did however not apply to anyone that were not Athenian citizens. Thus means that the assembly was more or less able to do whatever it pleased outside of the city’s bounds: as we can see in the case of Mytilene. For this reason, I will conclude that the assembly had more power than the jury-court and that it therefore was more powerful.

 

References

Aristotle

Thucydides

copyright reserved © Baloyi 2024