GOVERNMENT:
SPARTA'S CONSTITUTION WAS
REVOLUTIONARY
The Spartan constitution, commonly
dated to the early 7th century BC, is the first known constitution
that vested supreme power in the hands of an Assembly composed of all
citizens. Thus, Sparta was the first
known functioning democracy – roughly 150 years before the
introduction of democracy in Athens.
Sparta was the only Greek city-state to
introduce a land reform dividing land equally among citizens. Those who
received a state allotment were henceforth known as "Equals."
In addition to the
Assembly of citizens, Sparta retained two kings, with largely
ceremonial functions, just like the British monarchy today.
Sparta had a bicameral legislature,
divided into the Assembly and the Council of Elders. While the Assembly
was made up of all citizens, the Council of Elders (Gerousia) was
composed of the two kings and 28 elected citizens over the age of 60.
The members of the Gerousia held their positions for life,
making the Council of Elders a conservative and notoriously cautious
body. While many ancient philosophers praised the moderating
influence of this body, most modern scholars view it as a
non-democratic element in the Spartan constitution.
Ancient
historians had no convenient system for marking the dates of events
– which makes it even more difficult for modern historians to
try to apply dates to the events described. We therefore have no way of
dating the Spartan revolution with certainty. Ancient sources agree,
however, that following a period of unrest – possibly even a
rebellion of some kind – new, revolutionary laws were
introduced. These laws were submitted to the oracle at Delphi, which
advised the Spartans that they would live better under these laws than
any others. These laws gave an Assembly of all citizens the
final say in all matters, making Sparta the first – but by no
means the most radical – democracy.
As
is typical of early, innovative institutions, later modifications
introduced in other cities made the Spartan democracy appear
conservative as time went by. Sparta, for example, never entirely freed
itself of its kings. Two jointly ruling hereditary monarchs from
different families held restricted and mostly ceremonial functions
throughout Sparta's history as an independent state – very
much as the English monarchy functions today.
Another
notoriously conservative aspect of the Spartan constitution was the
Council of Elders, or Gerousia. Although this body was elected, as were
similar institutions in other cities, the Elders had to be over 60
years of age and were elected for life. In consequence, they were not
subject to the most effective of democratic censures: the need to be
re-elected.
Nevertheless,
Sparta's constitution clearly gave precedence to the
Assembly. The Assembly, which is believed to have met on a
monthly basis, was composed of all adult male citizens. Although it
could vote only on the bills presented by the Council, the common
misconception that the Assembly could only vote yes or no is belied by
accounts of lively (not to say rowdy) debates. (Note, also, that modern
legislatures also vote on bills presented and do not evolve legislation
spontaneously during debate.) Certainly, the Spartan Assembly was
powerful enough to exile kings. Nevertheless, the Spartan Assembly
never attained the absolute tyranny of the Athenian Assembly
– a point praised widely by ancient writers, who saw in
Sparta's more balanced (bicameral) democracy a means of controlling the
fickleness of the mob. Most people today, used to representational
democracy, would feel more comfortable in Sparta's democracy
than in that of Athens, where many officials were chosen by lottery and
the votes of illiterate and impoverished citizens were easily
manipulated and purchased by demagogues.
Sparta
also had five elected ephors. The ephors were executives responsible
for carrying out the day-to-day business of running the city, including
the receiving and sending of ambassadors. Initially they appear to have
been little more than clerks, but at the time of Chilon (mid-6th
century) they acquired more power and prestige. Acting
together during any one period, they could have a significant impact on
Spartan policy. For example, they are credited with forcing
King Anaxandridas into taking a second wife in the second half of the
6th century. However, their power was not as enduring as that of the
monarchs or the Gerousia, because the ephors were elected for only one year
and could not be re-elected.
The
most radical feature of Sparta's constitution, however, was the
introduction of land reform. Although this event, too, is lost in the
mists of undated ancient history, all ancient historians agree that at
some time (probably in the late 8th or early 7th century BC, by
our reckoning) Spartan society underwent a severe crisis. A rebellion
or civil war so threatened the continued existence of the city-state
that the citizens were prepared to accept radical new laws –
effectively, a new constitution. This constitution, reputedly developed
by Lycurgus, not only gave power to an Assembly of all citizens, but
included a redistribution of the land. The land was divided into equal
plots of sufficient size to support a man and his family, and each
citizen was given a plot, or estate – a kleros. Henceforth
the Spartans called themselves equals, or Peers – because
they were equal not only in rights but also in wealth.
There
is no question that with time this equality of wealth was eroded. By
the second half of the 5th century BC, wealth had become concentrated
in the hands of fewer and fewer families. Spartan citizens
were no longer equally wealthy. This has led some modern historians to
question that the land reform ever took place or to try to explain how
inequalities came into the system. One answer is that only
some of the land, most probably that in the immediate vicinity of
Sparta (that is, in the Eurotas valley), was divided into equal
portions, but that other estates – notably land conquered
later in Messenia – were not divided equally and were not
controlled by the state. Another factor influencing the
distribution of land over time would have been inheritance laws,
particularly the right of women to inherit. An excellent
short discussion of Sparta's land reform is provided in Paul
Cartledge's Sparta and Laconia: A Regional History 1300 to
362 BC (Routledge, London, 1979), and a more comprehensive treatment of
the subject can be found in Stephen Hodkinson, Property and Wealth in
Classical Sparta (Duckworth, London, 2000).
Yet
even if Spartans were not in fact equally wealthy, the myth of equality
remained powerful, and laws prohibited the hoarding of wealth,
particularly the ownership of gold and silver coins (possibly all gold
and silver). The ostentatious display of wealth was frowned upon
socially. This set Sparta apart from the other Greek city-states, where
the landed aristocracy, wealthy merchants, and manufacturers engaged in
extravagant displays of wealth and competed for the honor of donating
the most generous gifts to their respective cities. Spartan dress,
taste, and style were notoriously modest, even austere, but Spartans
were not crude, dirty, or unkempt – as contemporary art amply
demonstrates. In fact, modern eyes might well have preferred the
Spartan style of whitewashed buildings to the gaudy painting of temples
and statues common in the rest of the ancient world.
Certainly, while the citizens of other cities could be reduced to
beggary, all Spartans were guaranteed a minimum standard of living
– something most modern observers would applaud rather than
condemn.
This site is best viewed with IE6 (or higher), a browser window
sized at 1024 pixels wide or wider, and with a monitor display
resolution set at 1280x1024.
Text varies on this site between British and American English
spelling.
Most research was done in Europe and compiled for British English
publications.
Interviews and reviews reflect both American and British
English, as Helena Schrader is a leading authority on this subject
in the US and Europe.