Sparta: Encyclopedia II - Sparta - Constitution

Sparta - Constitution

We know little of the internal development on Sparta. Many Greeks believed there had been none, and that "the stability of the Spartan constitution" had lasted unchanged from the days of Lycurgus. The Spartans had no historical literature or written laws, which last were, according to tradition, expressly prohibited by an ordinance of Lycurgus. The Doric state of Sparta, copying the Doric Cretans, developed a mixed governmental state. The state was ruled by two hereditary kings of the Agiad and Eurypontid families, equal in authority, so that one could not act against the veto of his colleague, though the Agiad king received greater honour in virtue of the seniority of his family (Herod. vi. 5).

There are several legendary explanations for this unusual dual kingship, which differ only slightly; for example, that King Aristodemus had had twin sons, who agreed to share the kingship, and this became perpetual. Modern scholars have advanced various theories to account for the anomaly. Some theorize that this system was created in order to prevent absolutism, and is paralleled by the analogous instance of the dual consuls at Rome. Others believe that it points to a compromise arrived at to end the struggle between two families or communities, or that the two royal houses represent respectively the Spartan conquerors and their Achaean predecessors: those who hold this last view appeal to the words attributed by Herodotus (v. 72) to Cleomenes I: "I am no Dorian, but an Achaean;" although this is usually explained by the (equally legendary) descent of Aristodemus from Hercules.

The duties of the kings were mainly religious, judicial and military. They were the chief priests of the state, and performed certain sacrifices and also maintained communication with the Delphian sanctuary, which always exercised great authority in Spartan politics. In the time of Herodotus (about 450 BC), their judicial functions had been restricted to cases dealing with heiresses, adoptions and the public roads. Civil cases were decided by the ephors, and criminal jurisdiction had been passed to the ephors, as well as a council of elders. The dual kings' power was exercised mostly in the military sphere, rather than in the judicial sphere.

Aristotle describes the kingship at Sparta as "a kind of unlimited and perpetual generalship" (Pol. iii. I285a), while Isocrates refers to the Spartans as "subject to an oligarchy at home, to a kingship on campaign" (iii. 24). Here also, however, the royal prerogatives were curtailed over time. Dating from the period of the Persian wars, the king lost the right to declare war, and was accompanied on the field by two ephors. He was supplanted also by the ephors in the control of foreign policy. Over time, the kings became mere figure-heads except in their capacity as generals. Real power was transferred to the ephors and to the gerousia. Causes for this change lay partly in the fact that the ephors, chosen by popular election from the whole body of citizens, represented a democratic element in the constitution without violating those oligarchical methods which seemed necessary for the state's administration. They also lay partly in the weakness of the kingship, the dual character of which inevitably gave rise to jealousy and discord between the two holders of the office, often resulting in a practical deadlock. Another cause lay in the loss of prestige suffered by the kingship, especially during the 5th century, owing to these aforementioned quarrels, to the frequency with which kings ascended the throne as minors making the creation of regencies necessary. The dual kingship's prestige also suffered due to the fact that the kings were, rightly or wrongly, suspected of having taken bribes from the enemies of the state at one time or another.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Constitution", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki