ECCLESIA, the general assembly of freemen in Athens (EKancrla). In the primitive state the king was absolute, though his great nobles in council (see BoULE) were able to influence him considerably. In the earliest times the free people, i.e., the fighting force of the state, were called together to ratify the decisions of the king. In Athens, as in Rome, where the Plebs obtained the codification of the laws (the Twelve Tables), it was owing to the growing power of the people meeting in the agora that Dracon was entrusted with the task of publishing a code of law.
The precise powers which Solon gave the people are not known. The executive power (see ARCHON) was still vested in the Eupat rid class (see EUPATRIDAE) . It seems that, though the officials of the state were still Eupatrid, the Ecclesia elected those of the Eupatrids whom they could trust, and had the right of criticizing their official actions. Solon admitted the Thetes (see SoLoN) to the Ecclesia, thus recognizing them as citizens. Under Cleisthenes (q.v.) the Ecclesia remained the sovereign power. The relation of Boule and Ecclesia in the Cleisthenic democracy was of the greatest importance. The Ecclesia alone, a heterogeneous body of untrained citizens, could not have drawn up intelligible meas ures; the preliminary drafting was done by the Boule (q.v.). In the 5th century the functions of the Ecclesia and the popular courts of justice were increased by the exigencies of empire. At the beginning of the 4th century B.C. the system of payment was introduced (see below). Under Roman rule the powers of the Ecclesia and the popular courts were much diminished. They still assembled to elect strategi, and, under Hadrian, had some small judicial duties, but as a governing body the Ecclesia died when Athens became a civitas libera under Roman protection.
Throughout the period of Athenian greatness the Ecclesia was the sovereign power. The regular place of meeting was the Pnyx. From the 5th century it met sometimes in the theatre, which in the 3rd century was the regular place. Special meetings were held at times at Peiraeus. Certain meetings, however, for voting ostracism (q.v.) and on questions affecting individual status took place in the agora. Meetings were (I) ordinary, (2) extraordinary, and (3) con vened by special messengers (kuriai sunkletoi and katakletoi), these last being called when it was desirable that the country people should attend. At ordinary meetings the attendance was practically confined to Athenian residents. According to Aris totle there were four meetings in each of the prytanies ; probably only the first of these was called Kuria. In the kuria ekklesia of each month took place the Epicheirotonia (monthly inquiry) of the state officials, and if it proved unsatisfactory a trial before the Heliaea (supreme court) was arranged; the council reported on the general security and the corn supply. In the sixth prytany of each year at the kuria ekklesia the question whether ostracism should take place that year was put to the vote. On occasions of sudden importance the herald of the council summoned the people with a trumpet, and sometimes special messengers were despatched to "bring in" the country people (katakalein).
All Athenians over the age of 18 years were eligible to attend the assembly, save those who for some reason had suffered atimia (loss of civil rights). The introduction of pay, which be longs to the early years of the 4th century, was a device to secure a larger attendance. The rate rose from one to two obols and then to three obols, while at the time of Aristotle it was one and a half drachmas for the kuria ekklesia and one drachma for other meet ings.
The proceedings opened with formalities : the purification ; the curse against all who should deceive the people; the report as to the weather omens. The assembly was always dismissed if there were thunder, rain, or an eclipse. These formal ities over, the Prytaneis communicated the probouleuma of the council, without which the Ecclesia could not debate. This rec ommendation either submitted definite proposals or merely brought the agenda before the assembly. It explained the business in hand, which otherwise must often have been beyond the grasp of a miscellaneous assembly. After the reading, a preliminary vote was taken on the question whether the council's report should be accepted en bloc. If it was decided to discuss, the herald called upon people to speak. Any person, without distinc tion of age or position, might obtain leave to speak; any member of the assembly (I) might propose an amendment, (2) might draw up a new resolution founded on the principal motion, (3 ) might move the rejection of the motion and the substitution of another, (4) might bring in a motion asking the council for a recommendation on a particular matter, (5) might petition the council for leave to speak on a given matter to the assembly. Voting usually was by show of hands and the decision of the assembly had absolute validity. These decisions were deposited in the Metroon where state documents were preserved; peculiarly important decrees were inscribed also on a column (stele) erected on the Acropolis. The power of the council was far from suffi cient. The real check on the vagaries of amateur legislators was the graphe paranomon. Any man was at liberty to give notice that he would proceed against the mover of a given resolution. A trial in a Heliastic court was then arranged, and the plaintiff had to prove that the resolution in question contravened an existing law. If this contention was upheld by the court, the resolution was annulled and the defendant had to appear in a new trial for the assessment of the penalty, which was usually a fine. Three convictions under this law involved a certain loss of rights; the loser could no longer move a resolution in the Ecclesia. After the lapse of a year the mover of a resolution could not be attacked. In the 4th century the graphe paranomon took the place of Ostracism.
In the 4th century the assembly annually took a general vote on the laws, to decide whether revision was necessary. If the decision was in favour of alteration, any pri vate citizen might put up notice of amendments. The nomothetai, a panel selected by the prytaneis from the Heliaea, heard argu ments for and against the changes proposed and voted accord ingly; new laws so passed were liable to the graphe paranomon.
The Ecclesia heard cases of probole and eisangelia (impeachment—see GREEK LAW) . The pro bole was an action against sycophants and persons who had not kept their promises to the people or had disturbed a public festival. The verdict went by show of hands, but no legal consequences ensued; if the plaintiff demanded punishment he had to go to the Heliaea, which was not bound by the previous vote in the Ec clesia. Cases of eisangelia in which the penalty exceeded the legal competence of the council came before the Ecclesia in the form of a probouleuma. To prevent vexatious accusations, the accuser who failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes was fined I,000 drachmas (L4o).
The Ecclesia had absolute power save for the graphe paranomon, which constituted the dicasteries (jurymen) in one sense the sovereign power in the state. It dealt with all matters, home and foreign. It was in practice by no means a representative assembly. The phrase used to describe a special assembly (katakletos ekklesia) shows that ordinarily the country members did not attend. Thucydides says that 5,000 was the maximum attendance, though he is referring to the time when the number of citizens was reduced owing to the plague and the Sicilian expedition. The Ecclesia did not exercise the power of law-making (nomothesia) in the strict sense but passed psephis mata, which would in many cases be regarded as law in the mod em sense. The Ecclesia also was concerned with the supervision of administration.
See articles on SOLON ; AREOPAGUS ; GREEK LAW, OSTRACISM.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--J. W. Headlam, Election by Lot at Athens (CamBibliography.--J. W. Headlam, Election by Lot at Athens (Cam- bridge, 1891) ; J. E. Sandys' edition of the Constitution of Athens (5892) ; G. Gilbert, Greek Constitutional Antiquities (trans. 1895) ; A. H. J. Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (i896) ; L. Whibley, Companion to Greek Studies (1923), with useful bibliog raphy.
