The Gerousia

The Gerousia, constituted as the council of the two kings and twenty-eight elders ('gerontes')—the latter being required to have attained the age of sixty years—were elected by acclamation within the Spartan Assembly, and, similarly to the kings, held office for life. It is manifest from the Great Rhetra (section 2) that the Gerousia discharged a probouleutic function; that is to say, following preliminary deliberation, it prepared the agenda, comprising proposals to be decided upon and voted on by the Assembly. This command over the matters to be discussed afforded the Gerousia the pre-eminent power and influence in policy-making. This power was further augmented by section 4 of the Great Rhetra (oft designated as the Rider), wherein the council possessed the prerogative to refuse ratification of the Assembly’s decision on the grounds that the Assembly had altered the original motion, viz., 'if the damos speaks crookedly'. According to Aristotle’s commentary in Plutarch, upon the Assembly's commencement of distorting the original motions by the addition and removal of clauses, the kings Polydorus and Theopompos appended this Rider at a subsequent juncture. Nevertheless, it appears improbable that the Gerousia could have exercised this power in decisions pertaining to war and peace; an assembly of warriors and retired warriors could scarcely have countenanced such a veto.

The Gerousia was also influential in the conduct of foreign affairs through its position as the highest law court in Sparta, which alone possessed the right to impose the penalties of death, exile and loss of citizen rights; even the prosecution of a king would come before the Gerousia and the five Ephors. There exists considerably more evidence of 'political trials' in Athens, particularly in the fifth and fourth centuries; however, from the 490s to 378, at least seven kings and several other important military men were compelled to face prosecutions that were, in reality, politically motivated; for example, the prosecution of King Pleistoanax in 446/5, ostensibly for accepting bribes but in truth for his perceived leniency towards Athens. It would necessitate a king of intrepidity and confidence to pursue a policy that did not command the support of the majority of the Gerousia, cognisant that, in the event of failure, he was likely to be prosecuted upon his return.