* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the meeting of ASCS at the University of Melbourne, May 1981. The thanks that I must express to those present, especially to Dr. R. Develin, for discussion and criticism and also, for his earlier help, to Mr. G.T. Griffith,will not be taken to saddle any of them with concurrence in these views. The following special abbreviations are used:-

Anc. Soc. Inst. = Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies presented to Ehrenberg, V., ed. Badian, E. (London 1966).Google Scholar

Andrewes, ‘Gov. CI. Sp.’ = Andrewes, A., ‘The Government of Classical Sparta’, Anc. Soc. Inst. (1966), 1–20 Google Scholar

Andrewes, HCT = Andrewes, A. in Gomme, A.W. et al., Historical Commentary on Thucydides, Vols 4 & 5 (Oxford 1970-81)Google Scholar

Busolt-Swoboda, GS = Busolt, G. – Swoboda, H., Griechische Staatskunde (Munich 1926)Google Scholar

de Ste. Croix, Origins = de Ste. Croix, G.E.M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972)Google Scholar

Finley,‘Sparta’= Finley, M.I., ‘Sparta’, Problèmes de la guerre en Grèce ancienne, ed. Vernant, J.-P. (Paris 1968), 143–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffith,‘Isegoria’ = Griffith, G.T.,‘Isegoria in the Assembly at Athens’,Anc. Soc. Inst. (1966), 115–38Google Scholar

Grote, Hist. Gr. = Grote, G., History of Greece (Everyman ed., London 1888)Google Scholar

Jones, ‘Lye. Rhet’ = Jones, A.H.M., ‘The Lycurgan Rhetra’, Anc. Soc. Inst. (1966), 165–75Google Scholar

Kahrstedt, GS = Kahrstedt, U., Griechische Staatsrecht I. Sparta und seine Symmachie (Gӧttingen 1922)Google Scholar

Lewis, Sparta = Lewis, D., Sparta and Persia (Leiden 1977)Google Scholar

Poralla, Pros. Lak. = Poralla, P., Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier (Breslau 1913)Google Scholar

Thompson = Thompson, W.E., ‘Observations on Spartan Polities‘, Riv. Stor. dell’Ant. 3(1973), 47–58 Google Scholar

Wade-Gery, Essays = Wade-Gery, H.T., Essays in Greek History (Oxford 1958)Google Scholar

¹ Finley, ‘Sparta’ 152–3, cited with approval by Lewis, Sparta 38–9. Cf. Finley’s earlier statement: The Ancient Greeks (London 1963), 85.

² Finley, ‘Sparta’ 153.

³ Grote,Hist. Gr. 3.129–30,cf. 147–8; 9.304. This has become the prevalent opinion: see e.g. Kahrstedt, GS 264–5. den Boer, W., Laconian Studies (Amsterdam 1954), 167;Google Scholar Brunt, P.A., ‘Spartan strategy in the Archidamian War’, Phoenix 19(1965), 255–84, at 278;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Tigerstedt, E.N., The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity 1 (Stockholm 1965), 25.Google Scholar Dissent from this view, e.g. by Busolt, G., Die Lakedaimonier und ihre Bundesgenossen 1 (Leipzig 1878), 28–31,Google Scholar did not prevail. Of recent works, Cartledge, P.A., Sparta and Lakonia (London 1979), 135, 201–2,Google Scholar makes only incidental remarks that are consistent with Finley’s view; Hooker, J.T., The Ancient Spartans (London 1980), 124–6Google Scholar has a brief, sensible survey. Carlier, P., ‘La vie politique à Sparte sous le règne de Cléomène 1er. Essai d’interprétation’,Ktèma 2 (1977), 65–84, at 82–3Google Scholar, emphasizes that in the time of Kleomenes the damos gave its support to the leader that it favoured. See also nn.9 & 10, below.

⁴ Andrewes, ‘Gov. CI. Sp.’ 6–8, 14–16.

⁵ Andrewes, ‘Gov. Cl. Sp.’ 3, writes that ‘the assembly was ready to inflict savage penalties on him’. As Lewis, Sparta 39, notes, this passage makes difficulties for G.E.M. de Ste. Croix’s view that in Sparta only the gerousia acted as a high criminal court and that the assembly, unimportant in politics, had no part in administering justice (Origins 131–8, 349–53, esp. 130n.l07,133, 351). De Ste. Croix. Origins 351, allows as a possibility that in this case the assembly ‘might have taken the law into its own hands’, but Lewis loc. cit. says, ‘I cannot really believe that Thucydides’ language (at 5.63.2–4) allows of anything else (sc. than the assembly) throughout the whole episode’. Against Lewis, Thucydides must not be expected to have specified on each occasion the precise judicial processes of different states. Thus at 6.60.4, recounting the witch-hunt over the Mysteries affair, Thucydides says the demos freed some but κρίσεις ποιήσαντες condemned others; similarly, at 5.60.5-6, he notes the trial of two Argives at a customary judicial assembly held by the army before it entered the city. In contrast, Thucydides can speak of ‘the Athenians in the city’ exiling two strategoi and fining a third (4.65.3) or of ‘the whole body of Athenians’ fining Perikles (2.65.3). This was natural enough as the dikasteria involved were representative of the demos’ will. In the latter example Thucydides went on in the next sentence (2.65.4) to record how the Athenians re-elected Perikles: this obliteration of the separate role of a judicial body is comparable to what has happened in Thuc. 5.63, where Thucydides, beginning with‘the Spartans’ as subject, subsumed the gerousia under this in recounting the penalties almost imposed on Agis (sections 2–4) and then continued with an account of a new law passed against him, i.e. by gerousia and assembly acting in concert (νόμον δε εθεντο) in the traditional matter, which is discussed below. There is a similar telescoping at Thuc. 1.128.3 and 7.48.3–4. Similarly, at Hell. 5.2.32–4, Xenophon glides over Phoibidas’ trial before the gerousia (implied in Agesilaos’ remarks in section 32) to the decision of the Spartan assembly to hold the Kadmeia. See further, n.19, below.

⁶ De Ste. Croix,Origins 126–31,142–3. On Spartiates in the debate in 432 see esp. Thuc. 1.79.2; others spoke besides King Archidamos (79.2–85.3) and the ephor Sthenelaidas (85.3–86).

⁷ De Ste. Croix, Origins 129, 130.

⁸ Thompson 47–58.

⁹ Hamilton, C.D., ‘Spartan Politics and Policy, 405–401 B.C.’.AJP 91 (1970), 294–314,Google Scholar repeated at length in his Sparta’s Bitter Victories (Cornell 1979): see especially 96–8, 105–9, 121–4, 128, 130–3, 148–53, 233, 239–43, 321–2. Naturally, Hamilton still uses ‘apella’ for the Spartan assembly (e.g. 74) despite, most recently, de Ste. Croix, Origins 346–7.

¹⁰ Hamilton, , Sparta’s Bitter Victories 72–6,Google Scholar has added a sketchy account of policy-making but this is not related to the elaborate account of three-sided factional politics that runs through the book: thus the only statement on the origin of this triad of factions is that it was the ‘natural result’ of differences in ‘public opinion’ in the assembly (75). Hamilton lists Thompson’s article in his bibliography (338) but does not refer to it in the text, continuing to repeat his theses, even the one making Agis responsible for the war with Elis (88, 109–110) despite Thompson’s trenchant criticisms on this very score (Thompson 48–9).

¹¹ Thompson 56–7, rashly concluding that, since Xenophon reported only foreign envoys’ speeches and since he mentioned only on occasion that leading men tried to win the support of the damos, ‘he also believed that the assembly frequently acted on its own’. To treat Xenophon as if he were telling the whole truth is an old trap, though perhaps less obvious than that of making inferences from his silences.

¹² De Ste. Croix, Origins 130, 142–3 (allowing the hypothetical decision for war with Athens in 440 as another possible exception), 206–7. Lewis, Sparta 38, registered disquiet.

¹³ Xen. Hell. 4.8.12–16; Andokides 3 (On the Peace); Philochoros,FGrH328F 149a; see Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene (Oxford 1965), 25–33.Google Scholar

¹⁴ De Ste. Croix, Origins 129

¹⁵ De Ste. Croix, Origins 153. The wording of Thuc. 5.46.4 makes it clear that the ephors alone were not involved.

¹⁶ Other references to‘public opinion’ amongst the Spartiates: Thuc. 2.18.3,5.16.1; Xen. Hell. 5.2.3–4,32; 4.13,16,24; 5.29; 6.4.5. All more or less vague, but taken together not indicative of a passive citizenry. De Ste. Croix, Origins 136, noted that in acquitting Sphodrias the court took no notice of public opinion. Yet even so it needs to be borne in mind that feeling did run high on this issue: Xen. Hell. 5.4.23–4, 33.

¹⁷ Lewis, Sparta 111–13, treats it in this way; cf. Andrewes,HCT5.281. On the problem of gauging how far the ephors could go in dealing with foreign envoys without bringing the matter before the assembly see Andrewes, ‘Gov. Cl. Sp.’ 13 (cf. n. 31, below). I add more as straws in the wind than proof of Spartiates debating policy in the assembly: ( 1 ) Kallikratidas’ intention of reconciling Sparta and Athens (Xen. Hell. 1.6.7); (2) Klearchos, who persuaded ‘the polis’ to fight the Thracians and got the ephors to send him out (Anab 2.6.2); (3) Lysander’s alleged plan to give a revolutionary harangue in the assembly (Plut. Lys. 25.1–2,30.3;Ages. 20.2; Diod. Sic. 14.13.2; Arist. Pol. 1301 b20; 1306 b 33; Ephoros FGrH 70 F 206-7; cf. Anon. FGrH 596 F 7). The ‘repeated meetings of the assembly’ mentioned by Herodotos (7.134) over the ‘wrath of Talthybios’ are relevant here. Irrelevant, however, is Xenophon, Hell. 3.3.1–4, the settling of the succession dispute, despite the remarkable appearance of an oracle-expert Diopeithes making a speech; this affair was, I believe, settled in the gerousia, as Xenophon’s phrase των αρίστων (Ages. 1.5; cf. Lac. Pol. 10.1–3) indicates.

¹⁸ Plut. Lys. 17.1: προΰεοαν γνώμην for this sense of γνώμη, ‘a motion (in the assembly)’, cf. Plut. 7ïm. 38.3; Them. 16.1;Per. 13.5; on προτιθέναι see LSJ s.v.II.4 (add Dem. 1.1, 3.18, 18.273); not ‘deliberated on the matter’ (B. Perrin, Loeb) or ‘pondered the problem’ (I. Scott-Kilvert, Penguin). This incident was treated in some detail by fourth-century historians: Ephoros (FGrH 70 F 205) and Theopompos (FGrH 115 F 322) each named a different ephor as advocating ‘no change’.

¹⁹ See Thuc. 5.34.2 on the imposing and lifting of such penalties by‘the Spartans’; cf. Xen. Lac. Pol. 9; Plut. Ages. 30.2–4 (where Agesilaus announces a suspension of this law to το πλήθος των Λακεδαιμονίων). Akrotatos could not have opposed the measure in the gerousia, since he died before his father, well before reaching the minimum age of sixty (on his death see Plut. Agis 3.4; Poralla,Pros. Lak. 77,161–2). The part of the assembly rule (see e.g. Busolt-Swoboda, GS 2.693; de Ste. Croix, Origins 132, 350; see alson.5 above) that the assembly had no part in administering justice. Presumably it dealt with cases of ατιμία as well as with grants of citizenship (on these cf. D.H. Kelly, ‘Lysias XU.12’,Historia 27 (1979), 98–101 at98–9). For δόγμα (Diod. Sic. 19.70.5)meaning a decision of an assembly, see Busolt-Swoboda, GS 1.455; 2.1580 and LSJ, s.v.2 (to which add Xen. Anab. 6.6.8 & 27, Hell. 6.2.2, 5.33).

²¹ Andrewes, ‘Gov. CI. Sp.’ 20 n.24; de Ste. Croix, Origins 128 n.102(‘silly anecdote’). Jones, ‘Lyc. Rhet’ 167, found this evidence ‘more suspect as it appears in Plutarch {Mor. 801 B-C) in a different form’; but why should Plutarch’s reworking of a passage devalue it as evidence? The evidence of this anecdote is best appraised by Griffith, ‘Isegoria’ 134 n.20.

²⁰ Inferred by Grote, Hist. Gr. 3.129–30; cf. Busolt-Swoboda, GS 2.692; Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History 65; de Ste. Croix, Origins 128 n.103; Lewis, Sparta 38.

²² Xen.Hell. 2.4.29; 4.8.32; 5.2.24, 3.23–5;Anab. 2.6.2; Plut.Lys. 28.1 (cf. Xen.Hell. 3.5.6). This may have been all that Lysander had to do in 404–403 in his efforts at Sparta on behalf of the ‘Thirty’ at Athens (Xen. Hell. 2.3.13–14,4.28), but a speech or two by him in the assembly cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

²³ Arist. Pol. 1273 a 2–13 (comparing Cretan and Spartan practice with Carthaginian); cf. 1272 a 10–12 (explicit on Cretan practice). Wade-Gery’s attempt (Essays 51–4) to rewrite this evidence by a transposition in the text of Arist. Pol. 1273 a 2–13 is rightly rejected: see Forrest, W.G., ‘Legislation in Sparta’,Phoenix 21(1967),11–19, at 12 n.6;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Griffith, ‘Isegoria’ 118, 133–4; de Ste. Croix, Origins 127 n.101.

²⁴ De Ste. Croix, Origins 129–31.

²⁵ Lewis, Sparta 49.

²⁶ Kahrstedt, GS 1.273–5.

²⁷ E.g. Xen. Hell. 3.2.21–3, 5.5. Thompson, 48, declares the former of these decisions unanimous, and, although he goes beyond the evidence, he is followed by Lewis, Sparta 49, who freely postulates unanimity in Spartan policy-making. However, Xenophon was explicit when he recorded a unanimous decision of any kind of assembly: Hell. 3.5.16; 4.2.4; cf. 1.4.20; 6.5.49; Anab. 5.6.33, 7.3.14; cf. Aesch. 2.13, besides the rigged assembly of Thuc. 8.69.1.

²⁸ See Finley, ‘Sparta’ 151–3; Thompson, 51–5; Andrewes, ‘Gov. CI. Sp.’ 16–17.

²⁹ Andrewes, ‘Gov. Cl. Sp.’ 6, did not include this in his list of eleven instances of the assembly in action; Kahrstedt, GS 1.25 7, believed that only the ephors were concerned here, comparing Hdt. 9.8 (which is too anecdotal to be cogent evidence); similarly,de Ste. Croix, Origins 129–30. Cf. Sturtz, F.G., Lexicon Xenophonteum 2 (Leipzig 1804, repr. Hildesheim 1964), 760,Google Scholar s.v. το κοινόν: ‘h.e. vel ad senatum vel ad ephoros vel ad contionem’.

³⁰ As de Ste. Croix. Origins 127, states, and yet in Polydamas’ case he says ‘the investigation and final decision (my emphasis) must surely have been delegated to a much smaller body, probably the ephors with or without the Gerousia’ (130). On decisions for ‘war, peace, and alliance’, see de Ste. Croix, Origins 127 & n.100. On Xenophon’s use of εκκλησι for the Spartan assembly (Hell 2.4.38,5.2.33,6.3.3), see Wade-Gery, Essays 190 n.3; Andrewes, HCT 4.134.

³¹ See esp. Xen. Hell. 2.4.38, 4.6.3, 5.2.11 (ephors and assembly) against 3.1.1, 5.2.9, 3.13 (ephors only). Andrewes, ‘Gov. CI. Sp.’ 13, clears this matter up and is duly cautious about Xen. Hell. 2.2.13; see also de Ste. Croix, Origins 126 withn.96. On the significance of the terms οι εν τέλει δντες or rà τέλη applied to Sparta, see Andrewes, HCT 4.23 & 134–5.

³² So Kahrstedt, GS 1.25 8, whose view fits the context better than the belief that the μικρά εκκλησία was an ad hoc consultative body of gerentes and other notables (Busolt-Swoboda, GS 2.693, with n.5).

³³ Cf. nn. 1 & 2 above. Finley,‘ Sparta’ 148, went further in speaking of the army: ‘a chain of command in which the authority-obedience syndrome moved in one direction only.from the top down’. Cf. de Ste. Croix, Origins 128, 136–8, 353–4. Against this view, Andrewes, ‘Gov. CI. Sp.’ 3, cited Thuc. 5.60.2 & 63 to show that‘the Spartans were able to distinguish the roles of soldier and citizen’; cf. Carlier, Ktéma 2 (1977), 82 n.63. The military and the civil sides of Spartiate life were not, however, so rigidly separated.

³⁴ On Amompharetos see Kelly, D.H. ‘Thucydides and Herodotus on the Pitanate Lochos’, GRBS 22 (1981), –8.Google Scholar

³⁵ Xen. Hell. 1.6.4-6; 3.5.22; 4.5.7; cf. 6.4.8 ‘the last council’ (implying there were others beforehand), 4.15; Thuc. 4.37.2–38.3. The king’s staff is in Xen. Lac. Pol. 13.1–3; cf. Hell. 6.4.14. Kahrstedt, GS 1.184 with n.5, who seems to be the only one who has drawn attention to this practice of consultation, did not distinguish occasions when allied commanders.were present as well. It was offensive for a king in the field not to consult anyone (Thuc. 5.60.1); contrast Xenophon’s praise of Hermokrates’ skill at consulting colleagues (Hell. 1.1.30-1). From a different point of view, improvization on his own initiative was arguably a virtue in a Spartan officer (Xen. Hell. 5.2.32).

³⁶ The prime evidence is Xen. Lac. Pol. 5-7; cf. Arist. Pol. 1263 a 36-9, 1271 a 26–37; Plut. Lye. 12. See Finley, ‘Sparta’ 146–9; Lewis, Sparta 30–2.

³⁷ De Ste. Croix, Origins 137-8, 353-5: that there were wealthy Spartiates is, of course, assured, but what is not is that wealth and ‘patronage and clientship’ (de Ste. Croix, Origins 354) were decisive in Spartan politics.

³⁸ Xen. Lac. Pol. 4.5–6, 9.4, 10.1-3; Arist. Pol. 1270 b 36–1271 a 20.

³⁹ Bachelors: Plut. Lye. 15.2; Athen. 555 c; but Xenophon says nothing of this, and one alleged bachelor, Derkylidas (Poralla,Pros.Lak.no.228) did quite well. Tresantes: see n.19 above, and Xen. Lac. Pol. 9.4–6; Hdt. 7.231–2.

⁴⁰ Good evidence in Xen. Lac. Pol. 5.2-7; see further Plut. Lye. 12, Mor. 236 F, 697 E; Schol. PI. Leg1. 633 a; Arist. Pol. 1265 b 40–2, 1294 b 19–29, 1330 a 3–5; cf. Lewis, Sparta 34–5.

⁴¹ in Spartan civil life: Xen.Xac. Pol. 2.10,8.1–3; in the army,Hell. 5.2.6. De Ste. Croix, Origins 128, puts a different slant on this, but the essential point is that Spartiates were trained ‘both to rule and be ruled’: Xen.Anab. l.9A;Ages. 2.16, 10.2; cf.Phit.Ages. l.3;Lyc. 30.3–6;Mor. 212 B-C, 215 C. On this cliche of Greek political theory see Isoc. 2.2–5, 3.57; Arist.NE 1134 b 13–15;Po/. 1252 a 14–16,1259 b 4–10, 1261 b 1–5, 1273 b 12–17, 1277 a 14–1277 b 33, 1283 b 42–1284 a 3, 1287 a 11–23, 1288 a 12–15, 1295 b 4–23 (amongst the virtues of the ‘middle’ and most stable citizen and polity), 1317 b 2–3,1332 b 12–1333 a 16; Pl.Le#. 1.643 e, 6.762 e, 12.942 c; Soph. Ant. 669; Hdt. 3.83.2; Cic. Leg. 3.5.

⁴² Busolt-Swoboda, ΓΣ 2.682; Wade-Gery, Essays 37–54, 64–5. Forrest, Phoenix 21 (1967), 13, 19; Andrewes, 'Gov. CI. Sp. 5 with n.8; Jones ‘Lye. Rhet.’ 169; de Ste. Croix, Origins 127 n.99, all resort to explaining part of the proceedings in these passages (in flat contradiction of their wording) as informal meetings, often compared to contiones. The theory that the gerousia could veto only legislative proposals, not policy decisions (Kahrstedt, GS 1.273–5; de Ste. Croix. Origins 127–8) is not persuasive. On the intractable problems of‘the Rhetra’ (Plut. Lye. 6.1-2), a standing inducement to conjecture, see, most recently, E. Lévy, ‘La Grande Rhetra’, Kéma 2 (1977), 85–103.

⁴³ The case for Plutarch’s heavy use of Aristotle’s lost Lac. Pol. was presented by E. Kessler,PlutarchsLeben desLykourgos(Berlin 1910); cf. Andrewes,‘Gov. CI. Sp.’6– 7. Arist. Lac. Pol. fr. 532 (Rose) (on the Aigeidai and Amyklai) and 545 (on Terpandros) suggest that the work retailed the legendary and fanciful. Most of the criticism of the Ath. Pol. levelled by C. Hignett, History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford 1952) and much of that by J. Day and M. Chambers, Aristotle’s History of Athenian Democracy (Berkeley 1962) is sound and, to my knowledge, has not been refuted. See now, ioxAth. Pol. on the events of 411, Andrewes,//Cr 5.212–56. For a specimen of the credulity that is rampant in the use of the A th. Pol. for early Athenian history, see R. Develin, ‘The Election of Archons from Solon to Telesinos’, L’Ant. Class. 48(1979), 455–68.

⁴⁴ Forrest, W.G. ‘The Lykourgan Reforms’, Phoenix 17 (1963), 157–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 157-60, and ‘LegislationinSpaita’,.P/!oem’x21(1967), 11–18, at 17–18. Butler, D. ‘Competenceof the Demos in the Spartan Rhetra’, Historia 11 (1962), 385–96.Google Scholarat 389, seeks to evade the problem by assuming that Plutarch got wrong what Aristotle got right (how?) about the rhetra.

⁴⁵ The problem of the historicity of the Hetoimaridas episode is judiciously settled by Griffith, ‘Isegoria’ 134 n.20: whatever its status as evidence for 475 B.C., the passage is good evidence for the view of Diodorus’ putative source (Ephoros) on Spartan procedure in his own day; cf. Kagan, D. The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Cornell (1969), 378–9.Google Scholar Figueira, T.J.. ‘Aeginetan Membership of the Peloponnesian League’, CP 76 (1981), 1–24,at 17 n.77.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Forrest, Phoenix 21 (1967), 13, 16, 17, 19 (though he calls it ‘four stage’); cf. his History of Sparta 950-192 B.C.² (London 1980), 47-50. See further Wade-Gery, Essays 49,69–70; Andrewes,‘Gov. CI. Sp.’ 5; Jones,‘Lye. Rhet.’168–9; Kahrstedt,GS 1.273–6, who offer different versions of the procedure.

⁴⁷ Chrimes, K.M.T. Ancient Sparta: a re-examination of the evidence (Manchester (1949),410–11,Google Scholar 482–3, amidst much that is fanciful or mistaken, did see a survival of Homeric practice in the kings, ephors andgerontes holding debates amongst themselves before the people in assembly. On popular acclamation in archaic assemblies,see Dover, K.J. Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum Berkeley & L.A (1968),181.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The solution proposed clears away the old problem of how the damos could if (a) it had no right of amendment or counter-proposal and (b) could only vote on what the authorities laid before it (see Kahrstedt, GS 1.275 n.l; Wade-Gery, Essays 40, 50; Jones, ‘Lye. Rhet’ 165). The damos could speak ‘straight’ or ‘awry’ by their response to the speeches and proposals in them by kings and others, and this is what Tyrtaios idealized in fr. 4 (West), line 6 (cf. Plut. Lye. 6.5): ‘answering with straight rhetra;’ the evidence of this Tyrtaios-quotation as a whole is compatible with the procedure for the Spartan assembly that is being proposed here.

⁴⁹ Thuc. 1.87.2 (evidently not familiar to Thuoydides’ readers); Plut. Lye. 26.2–3 etc.; see de Ste. Croix, Origins 348–9; Larsen, J.A.O. ‘The Origin and Significance of the Counting of Votes’, CP 44 (1949), 164–81.Google Scholar Rahe, P.A. ‘The Selection of Ephors at Sparta’, Historia 29 (1980),3 85–401,Google Scholaris wrong in supposing that ephors were appointed by lot.

⁵⁰ ‘See Horn.Il. 1.22 (cf. 376), 2.151–4, 333, andesp. 18.502 where the laos shouts out in support of either side as the two parties speak, while there is a prize for the judge who gives the ‘straightest opinion’ (508); Od. 2.81–4. Sealey, R. ‘Probouleusis and the Sovereign Assembly’, CP 2 (1969), 247–69,Google Scholar argues that probouleusis began and remained in Sparta as an informal practice. He may have a point, but his treatment of Xen. Hell. 6.5.6–9 (pp. 264-5) misunderstands the passage; see further on Spartan politics his ‘Origins of Demokratia’, CSCA 6 (1973), 253–95, at 270–1. One might compare the shouting by the common people in the rubber-stamp assemblies of Greek cities under Roman rule: Dio Chrys. 40.3,47.18–20,48.2–3; cf. Jones, C.P. The Roman World of Dio Chrystostom Harvard 1978),20.Google Scholar