Situating Deliberative Rhetoric in Ancient Greece: The Bouleutêrion as a Venue for Oratorical Performance

ABSTRACT

Our understanding of the origins and early development of Greek rhetoric can be enlarged and sharpened by attending to the specific historical, cultural, and material contexts in which it was embedded. We perceive the cultural meanings and physical challenges of Greek rhetorical practice only to the extent that we consider the actual places and spaces in which it unfolded. This study examines and assesses the bouleutêrion (council house) as a venue for oratorical performance in the ancient Greek world, surveying a range of such buildings and describing their historical contexts, physical settings and configurations, and suitability as oratorical venues.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge those whose contributions and support made this study possible. The 3D reconstructions were created, and the other illustrations prepared for publication, by Azadeh Rabbani (M. Arch.), and we are grateful for her careful and creative work over a number of years. The acoustical analyses of four bouleutêria were conducted by Bryan Cranage (M.S. Acoustical Engineering), whose work allowed us to describe and appraise these and comparable auditoriums in empirically grounded ways. John M. Camp, Niarchos Professor of Classics at Randolph-Macon College and Director of the Agora Excavations in Athens, read an early draft of the essay and provided very helpful feedback about our substantive claims and the arguments supporting them. We are deeply indebted to him for this. Also, Bud Bynack, a developmental editor, provided important guidance in early revisions of the manuscript.

We would also like to express gratitude to our respective institutions for providing substantial financial support throughout the project. This support allowed each of us to travel to archaeological sites throughout Magna Graecia, from Sicily and southern Italy in the west, to Turkey in the east; to use the professional services of Rabbani, Cranage and Bynack mentioned above; to present early versions of this study at numerous professional conferences and conventions; and to subsidize the costs associated with publishing this essay in its final form. C. L. J. thanks, in particular, the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and the College of the Liberal Arts at Penn State. For R. J. G., thanks are owed to the Department of Writing Studies and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities.

Finally, both authors would like to thank the American School of Classical Studies at Athens for our appointments as visiting senior associate members on multiple occasions from 1987–2011. The bibliographic and human resources made available during these several tenures at the school were crucial throughout our investigations.

Notes

1. The pre-Solonic council in Athens had both judicial and deliberative functions (Aristotle Athenian Politeia 3.6; Bonner and Smith, 1: 89–90; Sealey 96; cf. Wallace, The Areopagus Council 39–47). Solon initiated a democratization of the council that was completed under Kleisthenes’ constitutional reforms of 508/7 bce (Aristotle Ath. Pol. 8.4; Plutarch Solon 19.1; Hammond 161; Woodhead 135; Rhodes 208–09; Jeffery 93 and 107; Sealey 115–16; Hansen and Pedersen). Following Ephialtes’ reforms (462/1 bce), this council directed or administered much of the day-to-day business of the state. It discussed and debated all policy questions, proposed laws, received foreign ambassadors, and decided which matters were to be brought to the popular assembly, the Ekklêsia, for deliberation and a vote. By contrast, the Spartans continued to vest significant legislative and judicial authority in their two kings and in a Council of Elders composed of twenty-eight men over sixty years old who served for life, and they never established a “popular” council like that of Athens and most other Greek poleis (Sealey 66–88; J. Hall 16; Raaflaub, “Archaic and Classical Reflections” 79; Wallace, “Councils” 192–93). The sole purview of the Spartan ekklêsia was decision making about going to war.

2. Mycenaean throne-rooms were sizeable chambers. Excavations at several such palaces have yielded well-preserved foundations. In addition to Pylos, dimensions can be determined for Tiryns (ca. 11.0 m x ca. 9.5 m) and Mycenae (ca. 16.0 m x 13.0 m). The larger chambers might have accommodated and gathering in excess of sixty.

3. Most scholars put the earlier Athenian Agora in this area, though there are dissenters (Oikonomides; Robertson; Shear, Jr., “The Agora and the Democracy”; Miller, “Old Metroon”; Fredal Figure 13; Paga 199–200; Thompson and Wycherley 19).

4. The Agora under consideration here is the civic and commercial space that was laid out beginning around 600 bce, and was designated formally starting at the end of the century (Camp, The Athenian Agora 37–39; see also Camp, “Before Democracy”; Thompson and Wycherley 19 and 25–26; Wycherley 27–30). This dating has recently been challenged by Papadopoulos (285–295, 297), but see Paga’s response (223–24).

5. Wooden, grandstand-like seating (ikria) was set up on the level ground of the Athenian Agora during the sixth century to accommodate spectators at the Panathenaic Procession, footraces, and dramatic performances. References to the erection of ikria in the Agora can be found in Athenaeus 4.167 ff. and Pollus 7.125. Also see Camp, The Athenian Agora 1986, 46.

6. For purposes of comparison, the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives measures ca. 37.1 m wide by ca. 21.6 deep (801.4 m²), with a ceiling height of 11.6 m. It provides seating for 435 members, including aisles and rows of desks and chairs. The U.S. Senate chamber measures ca. 27.1 m wide, ca. 16.5 m deep (447.2 m²), and 11.6 m high, with seating for 100 and similar furnishings. These dimensions are taken from Glenn Brown’s History.

7. McDonald refers to the speaker’s platform as the logeion and observes that, “if there was one, [it] must have been made of wood and set in the space [just behind] the altar. It is also possible that the orator merely stood on the floor in this area.” (90).

8. Izenour writes that “these pairs of columns were intended as vertical support members for two massive wall-to-wall beams for the purpose of shoring up the added weight of the coffered ceiling and were not intended as added support for the roof, which, if the coffered ceiling were not present, would seem to have been adequately supported by the trusses alone” (Roofed Theaters 50). The coffered ceiling would presumably have been affixed to the wooden beams supporting the roof, and thus would have been the same height as the exterior walls (12 m). This ceiling is a speculative feature based on Izenour’s postulation of “massive … beams,” and we have not included it in our restoration.