Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T05:31:07.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political activity in classical Athens1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

P. J. Rhodes
P. J. Rhodes*
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Only the naïve or innocent observer’, says Sir Moses Finley in his book Politics in the ancient world, ‘can believe that Pericles came to a vital Assembly meeting armed with nothing but his intelligence, his knowledge, his charisma and his oratorical skill, essential as all four attributes were.’ Historians of the Roman Republic have been assiduous in studying clientelae,factiones and ‘delivering the vote’, but much less work has been done on the ways in which Athenian politicians sought to mobilise support. There have been studies of family connections and of links between individual politicians; there have been studies of the associations known as hetaireiai; but many questions remain unanswered. W. R. Connor in The new politicians of fifth-century Athens contrasted an old style of politics, based on ties of philia within the upper classes, with a new style, which spurned philia and appealed directly to the people. Even in his old style, the votes of the ordinary, middling-to-poor citizens counted for more in the straightforward Athenian assembly than in the Roman comitia with their complex systems of block votes. Connor limits political friendship to the upper classes; he pours cold water on Sealey's suggestion that rich families might have brought pressure to bear on their tenants and other dependants (saying, ‘The proud and independent Athenian might be expected to resist intimidation’); but apart from general references to largesse he does not really explain how an old-style Cimon or a new-style Cleon would ensure that the assembly was full of voters willing to elect him as general or approve a motion which he proposed. J. K. Davies has tried to take the matter further in Wealth and the power of wealth in classical Athens.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 106 , November 1986 , pp. 132 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Finley, Politics, 76(–84). Dem. xiii 19 complains that men who are eager to be elected to office go around as δοῦλοι τῆς ἐπὶ τῷ χειροτονεῖσθαι χάριτος ‘slaves to the need to win support for election’; Plu. Nic. 3.1 leaves Pericles on the pedestal on which Thucydides placed him when he says that he led the city as a result of his true aretē and the power of his speech, and needed no σχηματισμός, ‘put-on-act’, towards the masses or πιθανότης, ‘means of persuasion’.

3 This phrase is the title of ch. iii of Taylor, L. R., Party politics in the age of Caesar (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Excessive reliance on clientelae as a master key seems now to be going out of fashion: see Millar, F. G. B., JRS lxxiv (1984) 1–19 Google Scholar.

4 E.g. Sealey, B. R. I., Essays in Greek politics (New York 1967)Google Scholar; Bicknell, P.J., Studiesin Athenian politics and genealogy (Historia Einz. xix [1972])Google Scholar; Davies, A.P.F.

5 See n. 69.

6 New Pol. 75–9; cf. the view of Hansen, M. H., The Athenian Ecclesia (Opuscula Graecolatina xxvi [Copenhagen 1983]) 220–2Google Scholar, and at greater length Die athenische Volksversammlung im Zeitalter des Demosthenes (Xenia xiii [Konstanz 1984]) 75–89 Google Scholar that in the fifth and fourth centuries there were groups of leaders but not parties of their supporters.

7 New Pol. 18–19, contr. Sealey, , Hermes lxxxiv (1956) 241 Google Scholar = Essays (n. 4) 65–6.

8 New Pol. 18–22 on largesse; 134 suggests that groups of friends could mobilise a majority in the assembly or council.

9 Wealth, esp. 88–131 (ch. vi).

10 The emergence of Greek Democracy (London 1966) 48–50 Google Scholar.

11 Andrewes, A., JHS lxxxi (1961) 1–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Hermes lxxxix (1961) 129–40Google Scholar; more drastically, Bourriot, F., Recherches sur la nature du génos (Paris 1976)Google Scholar, Roussel, D., Tribu et cité (Paris 1976)Google Scholar.

12 I cannot share the belief of Bourriot 460–91 and Roussel 79–87, 146 that there also existed genē of another kind, the 360 of Ath. Pol.fr. 3 Kenyon.

13 Ath. Pol. 2. 2–3, Plu. Sol. 13. 4–5.

14 P. 132 with n. 7, above.

15 These points are all in the account of Thuc. i 126. 3–7.

16 Ath. Pol. 5–12, Plu. Sol. passim.

17 Her. i 59.3, Ath. Pol. 13.3–5, Plu. Sol. 13.1–3 (before Solon's archonship), 29.1.

18 Her. i 59–64, Ath. Pol. 14–15.

19 Cf. Ath. Pol. 16.

20 Cf. Meiggs and Lewis 6, c, And. ii 26.

21 Her. v 66.2, 69.1, cf. Ath. Pol. 20.1.

22 Traill, J. S., Hesperia xlvii (1978) 109 Google Scholar; Siewert, Trittyen.

23 This is admitted even by Siewert, Trittyen, 137.

24 ‘Community patronage had to be at least partially integrated into the new institutional framework if it were not to be a disruptive factor’: Finley, Politics 35(–49). The interaction of demes and the Athenian state is explored by Osborne, R. G., Demos: the discovery of classical Attika (Cambridge 1985)Google Scholar.

25 E.g. Ath. Pol. 27.3.

26 Lys. xvi 14, xxxi 15–16, cf. xx 2.

27 And. i 150.

28 Plat. Apol. 33d8–e1.

29 Hyp. iv 12; cf. also Lys. xxvii 12, Dcm. xxiii 206, also Dem. xxix 23. The importance of the deme is stressed by Finley, Politics 46.

30 Lys. xxvi 3, cf. IG ii2 1237. 63–4 (I am among those who believe that the Deceleans in this inscription are a phratry).

31 [Plat.] Theag. 121d1–3.

32 Ar. Ach. 568, Eq. 320, Nu. 1209–10, 1322, Ec. 1023–4, Pl. 254.

33 Ath. Pol. 42.2–5, with Rhodes, Comm. ad loc.

34 Rhodes, Comm. 494–5: notice especially Aeschin. ii 167.

35 Cf. Humphreys, , CJ lxxiii (1977/1978) 101–2Google Scholar = Family, 28. Other passages mentioning ἡλικιῶται are Her. v 71. 1 (Cylon assembled a ‘hetaireia of his contemporaries’: evidence for the fifth century if not for the seventh); Ar. Vesp. 728, Nu. 1006; Lys. xx 36; Plat. Clit. 408C6, Soph. 218b3, Symp. 183C7, Ep. vii 332d4; [Dem.] xl 59, liii 4, Dem. liv 7; Aeschin. i 42, 49 (and συνέφηβος), ii 168 (συνέφηβοι 167), 184.

36 Lys. xx 11–12.

37 Lys. xii 43–4.

38 Dem. lvii 8–16.

39 Dem. lvii 60 cf. 26. Haussoullier, B., La vie municipale en Attique (Paris 1883/1884) 59–62 Google Scholar, claimed that deme officials came from a limited range of families: I do not know how far the evidence now available supports this.

40 Classical Contributions … M.F. McGregor (Locust Valley 1981) 33–9Google Scholar.

41 Lys. mentions expenditure in the pursuit of glory, xix 18, but expenditure to gain appointment to office (and opportunities for enrichment), xix 57. Humphreys, , CJ lxxiii (1977/1978) 102 Google Scholar = Family 28–9, remarks that in Athens ‘clients’ tended to be collective (demes, phratries and so on) rather than individual.

42 [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.13 claims that the people benefit from such payments.

43 Cf. Dem. xxi 13, xxxix 7, Ath. Pol. 56.3.

44 Ant. vi 11.

45 Isae. vii 36.

46 Cf. Isae. iii 80, viii 18–20.

47 Jordan, B., U. Cal. Puhl. Cl. Stud, xiii (1975) 101–2, 225–30Google Scholar; Siewert, Trittyen 10–13.

48 IG i2 897–901.

49 Xen. Hell, i 6.29, 35.

50 Dem. xiv 22–3.

51 Dem. 1. 6–7. In the same year the bouleutae were made to report those men whose ownership of property in their deme rendered them liable for proseisphora (ibid. 8–9), I believe because it was suspected that rich men were failing to declare all their own property and this method would produce a more comprehensive register: see Davies, Wealth 143–6; Rhodes, , AJAH vii (1982: published 1985) 1–19 Google Scholar.

52 Ant. ii Tetr. i β. 12.

53 Plu. Them. 5.6, Arist. 4.2, 7.1.

54 Plu. Them. 5.6.

55 Plu. Nic. 9.5.

56 Thuc. viii 53.2, 93.2, Xen. Hell, ii 3.23; cf. lobbying before the allotment of jurors Dem. xix 1, xxi 4, Aeschin. iii 1.

57 On men's reasons for expenditure of this kind see Lys. xix (n. 41), xxv 12–13 (to enhance one's reputation and so have a better chance in the courts if disaster strikes). Seager, R.J. in Jaher, F. C. (ed.), The rich, the well born and the powerful (Illinois 1973) 7–26 Google Scholar, and Whitehead, D., C&M xxxiv (1983) 55–74 Google Scholar, discuss the democratic ethos requiring those with wealth and talent to use them for the good of the state, so that philotimia found an outlet in public service: notice especially Dem. xviii 257, xxi 159, [Dem.] xlii 25.

58 Lys. xxi, esp. 1–11, cf. vii 31–2, xii 20, xviii 7, 21, xix 9, 29, 42–3, 57, xxv 12, xxx 26.

59 Cf. Rhodes, CAH v2, ch. iv, forthcoming.

60 Dem. xxi 151–74; xix 281–2, xviii 312–13; cf. also Lys. xxi 12, Xen. Oec. 2.6. Lys. xxvi 3–5 casts aspersions on a man who has spent his money in the approved way.

61 Arist. Pol. iv 1289b33–40; Lys. xxiv 10–12, [Dem.] xlii 24; cf. Ar. Nu. 14–16, 25–32, etc.

62 IG i3 131, 11 sqq., Plat. Apol. 36d5–9.

63 Her. vi 103.1–3.

64 Thuc. vi 16.2, cf. Isoc. xvi 32–4.

65 Lycurg. Leocr. 139–40.

66 Wealth 167–8 (app. iii).

67 See PA 12250 = 12251 = 12253, 9567 = 9573, 3519, 13470 = 13479, and the relevant entries in Davies, A.P.F.

68 On Demades see p. 142, below.

69 Calhoun, G. M., Athenian clubs in politics and litigation (Bull. U. Texas cclxii, Humanistic Series xiv [1913])Google Scholar; Sartori, F., Le eterie nella vita politica ateniese del VI e V secolo a.C. (Rome 1957)Google Scholar; Raubitschek, A. E., review of Sartori, AJP lxxx (1959) 81–8Google Scholar; Ghinatti, F., I gruppi politici ateniesi fino alle guerre persiane (Rome 1970)Google Scholar; Longo, C. Pecorella, ‘Eterie' e gruppi politici nell’ Atene del IV sec. a.C. (Florence 1971)Google Scholar.

70 And. i 61–4, cf. 49, 54.

71 Thuc. viii 54. 4 cf 65.2.

72 Lys. xii 43–4.

73 Hyp. iv 8.

74 Plat. Ep. vii 325C5–d5.

75 Plat. Theaet. 173d4. For allegations of corrupt appointments see [Dem.] lviii 29, Aeschin. iii 62, 73.

76 In addition to what follows, see the references to Cimon's hetairoi, Plu. Cim. 5.2, 17.6–7, Per. 10.3; to Pericles' friends, Plu. Per. 10.1; to Crito and Archedemus, Xen. Mem. ii 9.

77 Plu. Praec. Ger. Reip. 811c–813a, Per. 7.7–8.

78 Plu. Praec. Ger. Reip. 812d, Per. 7.8, 9.5.

79 Plu. Praec. Ger. Reip. 811e–f (Com. Adesp.fr 1325 Kock).

80 Plu. Arist. 3.4.

81 Plu. Dem. 21.3.

82 [Plu.] X Orat. 841b–c.

83 Th. 115 F 213, cf. Aeschin. ii 71.

84 Dem. xxi 139.

85 Dem. xiii 20∼ii 29, xix 225–6, xviii 312–13.

86 Broneer, O., Hesperia vii (1938) 228–43Google Scholar.

87 Plu. Arist. 7.3–4, Nic. 11, Ale. 13, with the discussion of A. Andrewes in Gomme, A. W. et al. , Historical commentary on Thucydides v (Oxford 1981) 258–64Google Scholar.

88 Plu. Arist. 7.6, with Rhodes, Comm. 270.

89 Hansen (n. 6) loc. cit., is not prepared to believe in political organisation on this scale. Large-scale bribery of ordinary citizens is alleged by Lys. xxix 12.

90 Plu. Per. 11.1–3: see the doubts expressed by Andrewes, A., JHS xcviii (1978) 1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 2, Hansen, loc. cit.; Dover, K. J. in Gomme, A. W. et al. , Historical commentary on Thucydides iv (Oxford 1970) 238 Google Scholar on vi 13.1, concludes that ‘it was not customary for the supporters of a particular speaker to sit all together’, but that does not rule out the possibility that it was sometimes done.

91 Phil. 328 F 140.

92 Ar. Ec. 296–9.

93 Ath. Pol. 63–5.

94 Boegehold, A. L., Hesperia xxix (1960) 400–1Google Scholar.

95 Cf. the references to packed assemblies Thuc. vi 13.1, Xen. Hell, i 7.8 (but D.S. xiii 101.6 does not imply the same degree of organisation), Dem. xviii 143; also Thuc. viii 66.1, Lys. xii. 44, 75–6. Dem. xxii 38 refers to the men who ‘together with him [sc. Androtion] had the council-house in their hands’ in ?356/5.

96 E.g. Isoc. viii 75, 124–8, xv 230–6, 306–9, Th. ap. schol. Ar. Pax 681, Ath. Pol. 28.

97 New Pol. 87–198, esp. 117–18.

98 Plu. Per. 7.5, Praec. Ger. Reip. 800c, Nic. 5 (but contr. Nic. 7. 7, Praec. Ger. Reip. 799d). For Pericles see also Plu. Alc. 7.3; Lycurgus is said by [Plu.] X Orut. 841c always to have been occupied with public business. But what is attributed to Themistocles is ambition and the abandonment of a dissolute life: Plu. Them. 3.4, Reg. Imp. Ap. 184f–185a, Praec. Ger. Reip. 800b.

99 Plu. Praec. Ger. Reip. 806f–807b.

100 Ar. Eq. 732, 1340–4, cf. (Pericles) Thuc. ii 43.2.

101 Ath. Pol. 27.3–4, Plu. Per. 9.2–3.

102 Plu. Per. 12–14.

103 Xen. Mem. i 2.11.

104 Wealth 114–15

105 Plu. Per. 16.3–4.

106 Plu. Nic. 3–4.1.

107 Thuc. iii 36.6 cf. iv 21.3.

108 Ath. Pol. 28.3 with Rhodes, Comm. 352–4; cf. Eupolis fr. 207 Kock on Syracosius.

109 Rhodes, Boule 105–8, 235–40, CJ lxxv (1979/80) 312–14.

110 Wealth 117.

111 Cf. Rhodes, CAH v2, ch. iv, forthcoming.

112 [Xen.] Ath. Pol., esp. 1.1–9.

113 Cf. Rhodes, , LCM iii (1978) 208–9Google Scholar.

114 Plat. Gorg. 452e1–4.

115 Thuc. iii 38.4.

116 Plu. Per. 8.7.

117 Suid. Περικλῆς (Π 1180). On Pericles as a persuasive speaker see Eupolis fr. 94 Kock.

118 Plat. Prot. 318e5–320c1, 322c1–328d2, cf. Thuc. vi 39.1 (Athenagoras), [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.6–7, Arist. Pol. iii 1281a39–b15.

119 This need for administrative skill is stressed by Andrewes, A., Phoenix xvi (1962) 83–4Google Scholar, Hornblower, S., The Greek world, 479–323 BC (London 1983), 123–6Google Scholar; but W. E. Thompson, Classical contributions … M. F. McGregor (n. 40) 153–9, argues that a political leader needed charisma more than skill. Finley, Politics 77–82, writes in terms of a division of labour among the ‘expert-lieutenants’ of the leading politicians.

120 Cf. p. 139 with n. 98, above.

121 According to Plu. Nic. 6.2 Nicias attributed his successes not to his ability but to fortune. Thuc. viii 68.1 writes of Antiphon that he avoided public appearances, was suspected by the masses because of his reputation for δεινότης (‘cleverness’, still not expertise), and was a powerful supporter of contestants in the law-courts and the assembly.

122 See Rhodes, Comm. 356, citing Ant. vi 49, Ar. Ran. 1505.

123 Dem. xix 200, 237, 249, xviii 261, 265.

124 Dem. xix 200, 246, 337, xviii 129, 180, 265.

125 [Plu.] X Oral. 842c.

126 Cf. Ath. Pol. 28.1.

127 Wealth 117–30. Humphreys, , CJ lxxiii (1977/1978) 99–100 Google Scholar = Family 24–6, discusses the circumstances in which marriage could be politically significant in Athens. Private wealth was an advantage to fourth-century generals because they might have to dip into their own pockets when public provision for their campaigns was inadequate.

128 Cf. p. 137 with n. 60, above.

129 Cf. p. 138 with n. 65, above.

130 Cf. p. 138 with nn. 83–4; above.

131 Pace Badian, E., JHS lxxxi (1961) 34 Google Scholar n. 134.

132 He was particularly ostentatious as choregus: Plu. Phoc. 30.5–6.

133 Davies, A.P.F. 100–1.

134 Cf. pp. 137–8 above.

135 Xen. Mem. iii 6.1.

136 Xen. Mem. iii 6.2–18.

137 Plu. An Seni 790e–791a, Praec. Ger. Reip. 805e–f, (cf. An Seni 795c–d), also Arist. 2.1.

138 Dem. xix 291, xviii 162. Similarly Polyaenus became known as a friend of Sostratus: Lys. ix 13–14.

139 Rhodes, Boule 173, from Xen. Mem. iii 6.1.

140 Rhodes, Boule 37–8, citing Aeschin. i 23, iii 2, Plu. An Seni 7840–d. Lys. xvi 20 replies to those who disapprove of young speakers. Bourriot, F., Hist, xxxi (1982) 417 Google Scholar with n. 63, suggests that only an exceptional man would propose a decree before he was thirty.

141 Cf. p. 141 with n. 124, above.

142 Plu. Dem. 8.7, 10.1.

143 Cic. Brut. 36, Quint, ii 17.13, xii 10.49.

144 Magistrates: Rhodes, Comm. 510; jurors: Ath. Pol. 63.3, oath ap. Dem. xxiv 151.

145 Davies, A.P.F. 457.

146 IG ii2 2318. 9–11.

147 Davies, A.P.F. 440–2.

148 Cf. p. ooo with n. 123, above.

149 SEG xix 133, 4.

150 Aeschin. ii 167–9.

151 Cf. p. 135 with nn. 33–4, above.

152 Thuc. ii 39.1, 4 (Pericles), Xen. Mem. iii 5.15, 12.5.

153 The Greeks (London 1967), 150 Google Scholar: cf. Xen. L.P. 11.7, Plu. Pel. 23.4; see also P.J. Bicknell (n. 4) 21 with n. 67, Siewert, Trittyen, 141–5. Ridley, R. T., AC xlviii (1979) 508–548 Google Scholar, esp. 530–47, looks for evidence that Athenian hoplites trained; Pritchett, W. K., The Greek state at war ii (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1974) 208–31Google Scholar, studies military training and on p. 217 concludes that there was no compulsory training for Athenian hoplites. Wheeler, E. L. in GRBS xxiii (1982) 223–33Google Scholar follows Pritchett on the lack of training at Athens (esp. 229–30 with n. 37) and argues that pyrrhic dances were of little relevance to military training, and in Chiron xiii (1983) 1–20 Google Scholar discusses hoplomachoi as ‘military sophists’ in the late fifth and early fourth centuries and argues that they originated in Arcadia (cf. Hermippus fr. 83 Wehrli and Ephorus 70 F 54, ap. Ath. iv 154d–e). Plat. Lach. 178a–184c and the other texts cited by Wheeler indicate that experts in hoplite-fighting existed but were not highly thought of; Arist. Pol. viii 1338b24–9 says that once only the Spartans trained but now all do; there must have been some training for the contest in euandria at the Panathenaea, a competition in military prowess between tribal teams (Ath. Pol. 60.3 with Rhodes, Comm. 676).

154 Cf. Isoc. viii 54–5, Plu. Phoc. 7.5–6.

155 Ath. Pol. 43.1, 61, 62.3; for the hierarchy cf. Ar. Av. 798–800.

156 Mitchel, F. W., TAPA xcii (1961) 347–57Google Scholar: e.g. Hesperia ix no. 8 = 0. Reinmuth, W., The Ephebic inscriptions of the fourth century BC (Mnem. Supp. xiv [1971]), no. 9, i 20–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

157 E.g. Hignett, C., History of the Athenian constitution (Oxford 1952), 224 Google Scholar. It is doubted by Pritchett, The Greek state at war ii (n. 153) 63 n. 17.

158 Harpocration, ξενικὸν ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Andr. 324 F 48, Phil. 328 F 150).

159 Just, vi 5.2, Oros. iii 1.21.

160 Ath. Pol. 31.2 (31.3 on other officers is too brief to justify conclusions).

161 Ath. Pol. 30.2.

162 Xen. Mem. iii 4.1.

163 Plu. Phoc. 6.5 with 24.5.

164 Men. Saw. 15. According to I.13 he had been a choregus while his adoptive father was still alive: had he volunteered with his father's support?

165 Dem. xviii 257–62 contrasts his own respectable with Aeschines' disreputable upbringing and career.

166 Dem. xx 148.

167 Caryst. fr. 11 Müller ap. Ath. xiii 577b–c.

168 Dem. xxii 66, xxiv 173.

169 Cf. p. 143 with n. 163, above.

170 Plu. Phoc. 8.2.

171 This is the correct inference from the fact that he was a diaitētēs in 330/29 (IG ii2 1924 11), contr. Davies, A.P.F. 518.

172 Schol. Aeschin i 64, Hyp. iv 28.

173 Davies, A.P.F. 123–6, Rhodes, Comm. 497–8.

174 Davies, A.P.F. 350–1; first appearance [Plu.] X Orat. 841e cf. some MSS of Dem. ix 72.

175 Cf. p. 143 with n. 149, above.

176 C. 398 Lewis, D. M., CR 2 viii (1958) 108 Google Scholar; but Dr E. M. Harris will argue for the date which used to be accepted, c. 390.

177 His and his son's birth dates: Davies, A.P.F. 100.

178 IG ii2 1623 188–9.

179 Hesperia xiii no. 5 (non-probouleumetic, pace Davies, A.P.F. 101).

180 Hyp. frr. 87–91, 92–3, Kenyon = 26B, 33B Burtt.