The method of appointing consuls in the history of Athens can be traced back to Solon's reform, and our main basis is Aristotle's Athens Political System. According to the book, Solon's former aristocratic parliament "appointed" consuls from tribal candidates according to family status and wealth, and assigned their own positions. Here, he did not specify when the tradition of appointing consuls by the aristocratic parliament began. Perhaps after the end of the royal government, the aristocratic parliament naturally gained this power. In ancient times, Greece experienced a large-scale movement to abolish the royal power. About the middle of the 8th century BC, Athens entered the period of aristocratic rule, and the aristocratic parliament became the real authority of the polis at that time. The predecessor of this parliament is probably an advisory body composed of prominent family leaders convened by the king during his reign, which is called the Council of Elders in Homer's epic. With the decline of kingship, this institution gradually gained the status of independence from the king and became the representative of the will of the emerging nobility. Aristotle pointed out that the aristocratic parliament has the power to protect laws, supervise officials and manage important domestic affairs. This position is partly due to the prestige established by the Presbyterian Church for a long time, but it is more the result of the overthrow of kingship and the rise of aristocratic power. At the end of the reign, the nobles carved up the power of the king and gained the privilege of consul. According to the traditional view, the aristocrat first gained the power to be the consul of the famous year, and he took over the executive power of the king, taking his name as the famous year; The military consul was the second stage when the nobles restricted the royal power, and the king was deprived of the military power; Finally, the hereditary kingship ended, and the king became one of the three rulers, retaining religious privileges. After retirement, the consul automatically entered the aristocratic parliament and served for life, so the two institutions formed a closed fortress, effectively preventing the decline of aristocratic power. The aristocratic parliament is not only the spokesman of the nobility, but also the highest authority of the city-state, and the power to elect consuls belongs to it. However, Hignett objected to this view, arguing that in the process of the transition from kingship to aristocratic politics, as compensation for acknowledging this change, the citizens' assembly gained the power to appoint consuls, and other junior officials might be appointed by the aristocratic parliament. This reasoning lacks strong evidence. When the kingship is getting weaker and weaker, it is the general trend and the will of the people to abolish the kingship. The leader of the movement, the aristocrat, probably doesn't need to make any commitment to the civilians for this kind of behavior. After the end of the monarchy, the nobles became the rulers of the city-state. In order to ensure the monopoly of political power, they can't hand over the appointment of the highest position in the city-state to the citizens' assembly. On the other hand, we found that at least before the end of the 7th century BC, the function of the citizens' assembly did not change much compared with Homer's, and there was no real right to vote, which also confirmed the monopoly of the nobles on the power of the city-state. Even if citizens who can bring their own weapons get the right to vote in delacour's legislation, this right to vote is probably only for junior officials. As for its role in the consul election, it is likely to be a formal vote after the appointment of the aristocratic parliament.
In 487 BC, the appointment of consuls began to adopt the election method of candidate drawing lots, but it was similar to Solon's period, because the political environment in Athens changed greatly after the Greek-Persian war. As for the initiator of this reform, some scholars speculate that it is Timmy stokely or Aristide, but there is no conclusive evidence. The implementation of the reform is probably not the role of one person. Judging from the political environment in Athens at that time,
Basic motivation
There are two basic motives for the reform: (1) expanding the scope of consuls and changing the situation that the aristocratic parliament is mainly composed of pro-Pisratos. (2) Improve political and military efficiency and prepare for resisting Persia.
Reform background
After the tyrant politics was overthrown, most people in the aristocratic parliament were supporters of the tyrant. They can not only attract cronies to influence the consul election, but also serve as consuls themselves. The consuls in 5 10 BC, Scarmendrios in 509 BC, Risagras in 508 BC and Isagoras in 508 BC were all related to tyrants. In 496 BC, Chipard Kush, a relative of the tyrant, was elected consul. At this time, it has been 10 years since Cristini's reform, which shows that the pro-tyrant faction still has some influence. Their activities first run counter to the trend of democratization in Athens after Cristini's reform. If they collude with the fugitive tyrant Scipio, it will affect Athens' anti-Persian plan. By drawing lots, it is an effective way to improve the enthusiasm of non-noble members of the five hundred knights to participate in the election, expand their chances of being elected, and gradually change the composition of the consul and even the aristocratic parliament. For the same purpose, in 488 BC, the Athenians also introduced the exile law of pottery pieces that had been put on hold for many years. The two-pronged approach is enough to show the seriousness of the situation at that time. In addition, the marathon campaign made the Athenians realize the importance of improving political and military efficiency. Before the reform, the consul of 10 and the general of 10 were directly elected, and the functions of the two institutions also overlapped. The difference is that generals can be re-elected, but consuls can only serve 1 year. Athens will face the invasion of powerful Persian enemies in the future, and war will become the theme of city-state life. A general with certain military skills can not only improve the chances of success, but also ensure the continuity of policies. The current situation pushed the general to the front of Athens politics, and this result was at the expense of the decline of the consul's power. After the archon was drawn by lot, the power and honor of the official position itself decreased with the decrease of the requirement for his ability, and it was no longer the goal pursued by the most capable people in the city-state. This is the essence of this reform, and it is also the biggest difference from Solon's reform of consul election, because Solon mainly used lottery to help the rich enter the consul group that has been monopolized by nobles, and the position of consul was not affected, and it remained the highest office of the city-state. After this reform, the generals became hot figures, not only taking over the military power of the consuls, but also gradually replacing their chief position in internal affairs. Therefore, the reform in 487 BC was the beginning of the power transfer between generals and consuls, and once this process started, it developed in an accelerated form. Judging from the content of the reform, this reform contains some new factors. After Cristini's reform, the idea of equality began to appear and develop in Athens. But as far as consuls are concerned, the 10 tribe has always elected nine consuls, which means that there must always be a tribe willing to play the role of foil. Therefore, in this reform, the Athenians set up the position of secretary of the judicial consul, and the consul committee was composed of 10 people to ensure that each tribe had its own representatives. But the problem still exists. Imagine one tribe serving as a senior official in succession and another tribe serving as a secretary in succession. Although each tribe has representatives, it is inevitable that there will be objections. In view of this, the Athenians introduced the principle of rotation into the electoral mechanism while adding official positions. On the basis of ensuring that each tribe is represented, it is stipulated that each consul should come from a different tribe every year, that is, 10 is a cycle, and members of the same tribe cannot hold the same post twice. This principle is probably realized by drawing lots. In the first year of each cycle, 10 tribe draws lots: the first round draws officials; In the second round, the other nine tribes elected the king's consul, and so on. In the next eight years, every time an official position is decided by drawing lots, the tribes who have held this official position will be excluded, so nine tribes will participate in the first round of drawing lots. In the last year of 10, it is self-evident which position each tribe should take, and there is no need to draw lots. Tribal representation principle and rotation principle ensure equality among tribes, and lottery ensures equal opportunities among candidates. Therefore, this reform embodies an important concept of democratic politics-equality, which is an important step taken by Athens on the road to democracy. In 487 BC, the reform of consul election was not accompanied by the change of official qualifications. The qualified people were still limited to the first two grades, but the use of lottery prepared conditions for the consul to expand to a wider range. According to the law of In 457 Bc, the third rank can also serve as consul. This provision should have been the proper meaning after the archon's status was reduced, but from Aristotle's words, it is more likely to be an expedient measure in Athens. This year, Athens was caught in a two-front battle with Persia and Sparta, and asked the third-level infantry to be continuously supplemented, probably to improve their fighting enthusiasm, so the official ignored the legal provisions and allowed them to serve as consuls. Perhaps by the end of the 5th century BC, the fourth-level running for consul was acquiesced. At this time, although Solon's property qualification was not officially abolished, it was no longer strictly enforced.
Draw lots to replace
At the same time, the appointment method of consuls has changed. The previous direct election was changed to draw lots, and the election procedure was changed to draw lots twice: first, the 10 tribe drew lots to select 100 candidates; Then, the candidates draw lots again, resulting in 10 consul. The election still follows the principle of tribal representation and rotation. In the 5th century BC, this process may still be completed with the help of soybeans. In the 4th century BC, due to the widespread use of lottery machines, the consul's lottery tickets may also be switched to lottery machines. The lottery machine is carved from a rectangular stone with 10 rows and 10 rows of grooves, and there is a copper tube on the left. First, insert 100 candidate famous brands into the groove according to the rule of one column for each tribe, and then randomly put 9 black 1 white 10 balls into the test tube. When the white ball appears, the designated ball. When assigning posts, two lottery machines are used, one is the famous brand of consul 10, and the other is the small brand with the official name. In order to ensure the principle of rotation, every time the white ball on the lottery machine chooses a consul, the other lottery machine must first exclude the position held by his tribe before releasing the ball. At this point, the evolution of the consul election system has come to an end. This change should be said to be the natural result of the development of democracy in Athens. The two lotteries have further improved the opportunities for ordinary citizens to serve as consuls, which is another embodiment of the idea of "rule by man" under the democratic system.
Double draw
From direct election to pure lottery, the evolution of the consul election system has gone through a long three centuries. This process is not only a microcosm of the change of consul's power, but also a microcosm of the democratization process in Athens. It didn't go straight, but it had twists and turns: at first, the consul was the highest office of the city-state, and the nobles gave his appointment right to his spokesman, the aristocratic parliament, which formed a monopoly on the consul. Solon introduced the lottery to the consul election for the first time, which expanded the qualification of being an official and broke the aristocratic monopoly, but did not shake the position of the consul. In order to maintain the rule, the tyrant changed the lottery election to direct election, and the consul was controlled by the tyrant. After the reform, Cleisthenes's position was restored. In 487 BC, the lottery system was revived, and the status of the consul declined irretrievably. At the end of 5th century BC, the combination of election and lottery was replaced by double lottery, and the consul was reduced from the highest official position in the city-state to an ordinary official position open to almost all citizens. From this process, we can see that the Athenians realized the increasing popularity of consuls mainly by changing the electoral system. Under the impact of Ephialtes reform in 462 BC and several consul reforms, the aristocratic parliament, which was closely related to it, was no longer the spokesman of the nobility. After the baptism of the wave of democracy in the 5th century BC, the consul and the aristocratic parliament, which used to be the fortress of nobility, were finally democratized.