Le Conseil et l'Assemblée dans la grande Rhètra de Sparte

Abstract

La Grande Rhètra et son amendement (Plutarque, Lycurgue, VI, 1 et 8) donnent- ils à la gérousia le droit de dissoudre l'assemblée pour éviter une décision qui ne lui conviendrait pas, comme l'affirme Plutarque ? Cette interprétation, difficile sur le plan logique, n'est nullement corroborée par les informations disponibles pour les années 550-350. En conservant à ἀφίστασθαι et ἀποστατηρας ἧμεν le sens de «laisser faire» et «se dissocier», on peut restituer la fonction probouleutique ordinaire de la gérousia et l'esprit pionnier de la rhètra.

3. The origins, development and reliability of the ancient tradition about the formation of Spartan constitution

“…At the beginning of the discussion we shall briefly outline the development of the opinions of the ancients about Lykourgos and early Spartan history, as far as they can be traced in the extant literary sources. Rudolph 1956;1954;Hammond 1950;Den Boer 1954, 153-196;Tsopanakis 1954;Butler 1962;Kiechle 1963, 152-176;Forrest 1967;1968, 41-55;Jones 1966;Oliva 1971, 71-102;Bringmann 1975;Levy 1977;Welwei 1979;Ruze 1991;Nafissi 1991, 51-81;Ogden 1994;Thomsen 1996, 30-53. Of these perhaps only Hammond and Den Boer have taken in account what the ancients themselves thought about when and why the Rhetra was established.…”

“…19 Rhetra has been regarded as an enactment of the transmission of power either from the kings to the aristocratic gerousia (Kiechle 1963, 161-162, 175-176;Den Boer 1954, 195-196), or from the kings to the assembly of all Spartiates (Rudolph 1956, 66-70;Tigerstedt 1964, 55-58;Bringmann 1975, 531-537). 20 Forrest 1963;Jones 1966;Jeffery 1978, 117-118;Bringmann 1975;Welwei 1979, 194-195;Cartledge 1979, 131-135;Ruze 1991;Nafissi 1991, 71-81. 21 The approach of the moderns is the more questionable, because the conception of the democratisation of Greek society is essentially based on Aristotle' conception of the general development of the Greek state and society (stated explicitly in Polit.…”

“…62 If so, there are again two possibilities. Tyrtaios could have quoted it as an approval of the supplement by the kings to an already existing constitution, ἀφίστασθαι in the Rhetra proper and ἀποστατῆρας ἦµεν in the Rider meanings that enable to take them as standing for the successive stages in the same chain of procedure, making so the Rider its necessary part (Wade-Gery 1958, 47-50;Forrest 1967, 15-17;Ruze 1991, 24-26. See also Tsopanakis 1954.…”