Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Author(s): A. G. Woodhead
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 16, H. 2 (Apr., 1967), pp. 129-140
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434976 .
Accessed: 27/02/2014 15:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.
http://www.jstor.org
Historia XVJ/2
130
A. G. WOODHEAD
probouleuma had not covered, although this is generally held to have been, on
a strict interpretation of the rules, impermissible.5
All this is tolerably familiar to students of Athenian history and constitutional practice - so familiar indeed that few pause to reflect what an extraordinary
proceeding it was. In Rome, where the aristocracy had succeeded in holding
firmly in their grip the democratic possibilities inherent in the constitution, the
citizen in the comitia had the right to vote but could do nothing more. In
oligarchically governed communities in Greece (and, after all, oligarchies were
the most usual of governments in the archaic and early classical Greek 7oGt6et)
it was in the oligarchs' interest that as few as possible should have any practical
voice in running the city's business. There was nothing in the general atmosphere of Greek political practice, or indeed (before the Athenian experiment)
of Greek political thinking, to suggest that every man ought of right to have a
say in the formulation of his city's policy. In Athens of 460 BC, Mr Griffith's
terminus ante quem for the institution (if that is the proper word) of to-iyopoc,
the oligarchic past was not so very distant. Until half-a-century earlier, Athens
had been controlled either by the aristocrats or by the Pisistratid autocracy,
and the idea that 6oPouX6[evoqwas entitled to express himself was undoubtedly
at a discount.
It is true that ever since the time of Solon any and every citizen had had the
right to lay complaints against an ex-magistrate, to form part of the 'jury' in
the Heliaea, and to vote in the assembly. In the second and third of these
activities, however, he was not expected to say anything. About the machinery
for effective implementation of the first of them, as far as the archaic period is
concerned, we are not informed. As a plaintiff in a case of administrative
malfeasance a citizen would, unless he were a wealthy man at factional variance
with the magistrate concerned, be wise to get an influential supporter to take
up his wrongs. Solon is usually much praised for his introduction of the possibility of redress against mis-government; the whole idea was, says Aristotle, one
of the most 8-%uorLx6v things about his legislation.6 But it took its place in a
131
art.cit., 121-122.
8 'AO. HoX. 22, 3; 25, i. In the latter passage I take a'E,vottkvou to refer to a rise in
confidence rather than merely to a rise in the birth-rate.
9*
A. G.
132
WOODHEAD
11 Cf. Mnemosyne
Gorgias 455a-456a.
D. Kagan, The Great Dialogue, x965, 8I-83.
XIII
1960, 295-6.
I33
democracy it was its strength.13The assembly was not prepared to fall silently
under the thumb of professional 'governors'whose oligarchy or autocracy could
be justified by a claim to greater experience or knowledge of affairs. All Athenian citizens could, if they took the trouble, acquire a sufficient experience or
knowledge to entitle each of them, with justice, to his icrlyopLa,and both
experience and ta'yoptL.together constituted a bulwark against the enemies of
democracy. Both were required; by itself, neither sufficed.
Thus, although regular attendance at the assembly, plus private political
discussions, plus his growing up in an atmosphere of political involvement, so
that he was accustomed to it and viewed it as natural, would all have played
some part in providing a citizen with the requisite political experience, more
was needed to make -lyopio work and to make it an expected right. This
additional experience was provided by the Pou?cn,the council of 500 chosen by
lot from among all citizens over the age of thirty capable of service on it and
prepared for their names to go forward. It has become a truism, repeated in all
the text-books about the Athenian state, that the P3oiXnwas the education of
the Athenian citizen and the lynchpin of the democracy. Oligarchic coups d'6tat
rightly chose it as their prime target for liquidation. This claim may appear less
plausible when it is remembered that no man could serve on the council more
than twice in his lifetime, and that he might be quite elderly before his name
came up at all. It is indeed probable that at any given time less than half the
citizens of Athens had ever served on the Cleisthenic PoUA. Those who had
served, and had received that extra amount of political education, would be at
an advantage as candidates for other offices, the more so if they were relatively
well-to-do, as the majority of this minority probably were. This would so well
suit the whole concept and composition of Cleisthenes' council as envisaged
below that one can hardly feel such a development unpremeditated by Cleisthenes himself. He will have provided, in that event, that his ex-councillors would
be able to exercise a moderating but powerful influence throughout the other
organs of government, and the knowledge and confidence of these ex- PouXvTat
would in any case spill over into the assembly, of which they would no doubt
form an active and respected part.
Nevertheless, a man might become a ,ouXeu'q- early as late; he would
probably have a father, brothers, relatives, friends and acquaintances who had
served or were serving their tum and from whose experience his own would be
enriched. Their informed opinion in discussion, their readiness to speak out in
council, would communicate themselves to him. What a man would do, or knew
others to have done, in front of 499 fellow citizens he would be prepared to do
before ten times that number, simply because he became used to formulating
a worthwhile opinion on the basis of the best information, and to expressing it
before a large and critical gathering.
Is
2.
I34
A. G. WOODHEAD
For we must suppose that the procedure in the ,3ou?Vwas in some measure
that of the assembly in microcosm. The matters which needed attention would
be introduced by those responsible for them - magistrates, generals, prytaneis,
commissioners, and so forth - and they would be thrown open for general discussion. In a body as large as 500 this would of necessity involve some formality
of procedure; 'discussion' is perhaps the wrong word. 'Delivery of opinion', as
in the Roman senate, though without its strict order of precedence in calling
for sententiaeand with a formal motion (to go ultimately before the ecclesia) to
be evolved rather than responded to, would be a more apposite description.
Among the 500, as in any committee large or small, there would be some who
might be relied on to speak up at every session and say something about
everything. There would be others who might never open their mouths throughout their tenure. But for the most part the average Poueu - would be content
to intervene now and then, when he had something particular to contribute on
a subject which had engaged his special interest and on which he felt himself
well qualified. Those who were shy would become bolder as the months went
by, as their colleagues as well as the business under consideration became more
familiar, and when perhaps their month in prytany had brought them into the
most intimate contact with events and their day as chairman, if the lot so fell
on them, would have made them 'president for a day', head of the res publica,
had finished their year they
in effect, for twenty-four hours. When the ,Bou?,eurou'
were thoroughly au fait with the city's current problems, with an experience
and an expert knowledge from which the city ought to have been able to profit.
Their opinions and advice were not the amateur things Plato tries to suggest,
but were worth having and ought not to be missed. Yet without full 1v-yopta
in the assembly they would have no chance to produce them; their voices would
be silent at the very time when they had become particularly well worth
listening to. And if lay6yopLwas desirable from the city's point of view, it may
also be imagined that the ex-councillors themselves got used to saying what they
thought about public affairs, and used to influencing their conduct. That they
should require the right to speak freely in the ecclesia was in the circumstances
and a natural developa corollary of the freedom they had enjoyed in the Pou?X4,
ment of it. If the lawgiver had not included it in his legislation when he shaped
the council of 500, it was a right that those who sat on his new council would
in the end come to demand, and which the city would be equally ready to
concede. It is therefore the institution of the Cleistheniccouncil which is cardinal
to the whole issue of the development of 'qtyopLa.If Ephialtes' reformsprovide
its terminus ante quem, those of Cleisthenes must be regarded as the terminus
post quem, for it is only in the light of the working of Cleisthenes' system that
the need and demand for free speech on the Pnyx can be effectively envisaged.
In this connexion it is noteworthy that Herodotus saw Lonyopiy)as the most
significant product of Cleisthenes' legislation. When he wrote, it had begun to
I35
noc gxocarog&OUrTjr
rpo0u9t6sTo xarEpyoaOeAct."'
A. G. WOODHEAD
I36
20 Bradeen rightly observes that these divisions had nothing to do with the old partisan
divisions of 'plain, coast and hill'; but both Cleisthenes' divisions and the earlier ones
emphasise that there was a need for a fair representation of Attica in its totality on the new
Pou)i. However, the very existence of the old three party division has been called into
question by R. J. Hopper, BSA LVI I96I, 189-219.
137
It was, it may here be added, immaterial that in certain cases the territory
of two trittyes within the same tribe was contiguous. Since Aristotle specifically
says that Cleisthenes sought to mix up the people,21 it was felt to be something
of a stumbling-block when it was appreciated that within three tribes at least
out of the ten his arrangements signally failed to do this by producing a large
area of continuous tribal territory.22The error has lain in supposing that the
lawgiver was especially concerned to combat the local interest of local landowners, it being supposed that hitherto the aristocrats had secured their position
by exercising pressure on their humbler neighbours in the area of their landholdings and drawing on their support in the assembly like patroni with their
clientes.2 But this was not a problem; since he did not care about trittys-contiguity, and left to the drawing of lots the assignment of trittyes to their tribes,
it is evident that Cleisthenes did not see it as such. For one thing, this kind of
pressure can only be effectively exercised when a group or area delivers a block
vote, as was the case at Rome." Individual votes freely cast are less susceptible
to control of this sort, and Cleisthenes inherited an ecclesia in which individual
voting was the practice. Local pressures of the kind inferred cannot be seen to
have been a feature of it.
Furthermore, if this had been a problem, Cleisthenes' measures were far from
solving it. Contiguous blocks of trittys-territory mattered less than the demeunit, for it was on the deme that local patriotism centred. This patriotism
Cleisthenes expressly tried to enhance.2 If a local bigwig could influence his
neighbours before Cleisthenes he was in no less of a position to influence them
after him, at least until passing generations and a certain amount of social
mobility had dispersed some of the 8n,u6rxtto other parts of Attic territory and such a dispersal went far towards nullifying the intent of Cleisthenes' redistribution, so that it cannot be held that he was looking forwardto some such
development. What is more, the phratriai and thiasoi which have been claimed
as focal points of this personal influence remained an integral and cherished
1 Aristotle, 'AO. Ho?A.2I, 2. The enrolment of new citizens, or confirmation in their
rights of citizens enrolled under the tyranny, is essentially a side-issue in the larger perspective of Cleisthenes' reforms, although at the time it was no doubt a burning question. See
most recently J. H. Oliver, Historia IX I960, 503-7; D. Kagan, ibid. XII I963, 41-46.
'
The tribes Antiochis, Akamantis and Aigeis. C. W. J. Eliot, Coastal Demes of Attika,
I962,
144, believes that, so far from having wished to avoid such contiguity, 'Kleisthenes
preferred to have the coastal and inland trittyes contiguous within a phyle where it was
topographically possible'. By contrast, there were cases in which demes belonging to the
same trittys were not contiguous. Cf. Lewis, oc. cit., 35-6. There is a great deal about
Cleisthenes' methods of survey and preliminary studies before the lots for his tribes were
finally drawn which we cannot know and about which we can only advance rival speculations; but through it all the end which he had in view remains clear enough.
' So, e.g., E. M. Walker, C.A.H. IV, I47-8.
"Bradeen rightly emphasises this point, loc. cit.
a?Aristotle, 'AO. HOX. 21 5-6
I38
A. G. WOODHEAD
element of Attic society. Their importance, such as it may have been, in political or administrative arrangementswas superseded; they seem to have retained
some religious functions of consequence, and their prestige and significance for
the citizen-body certainly survived. Enrolment in a phratry or thiasos was as
much an element of entry upon citizenship as enrolment in a deme. When a
foreigner is accorded citizen-rights, his enrolment in a phratry is mentioned
pari passu with his registration in a deme, and as a particular privilege he
might be permitted to choose to which deme and phratry he wished to be
assigned.26Now personal influence, to whatever end, can be exerted in any
context by those who wish to profit from it. Many men have used, and will
always use, non-political club membership, sporting associations, freemasonry,
religious organisations, indeed any kind of society, as fields for the exercise of
commercial or political patronage or pressure.27In some cases societies formed
for non-political ends, and with non-political names, have developed into political organs. The phratries could offer such admirable scope for this kind of thing
in the future as they had, if they had, in the past. Cleisthenes' geographical
basis for his reform had thus nothing to do with local landlords and local
pressures; it was the one practicable basis for the kind of ,3ou)t he had in mind.
For it was to the council and not to the assembly that he looked from the Attic
demes; the PouXAwas the target, and the beneficiary, of the whole exercise.28
The city area was represented on the council to the extent of one third of its
total strength, Bradeen correctly regards the committee of prytaneis, itself a
representative Pou?,nin miniature, as a vital element in Cleisthenes' arrangement, and suggests that the reform was primarily concerned to see that the city
was properly represented in all the tribes.29But Busolt and De Sanctis,30whose
36 E.g., I.G. I1 1I03, lines 30-33 (M. N. Tod, op.cit., II, 1948, 133), in which Dionysius I
of Syracuse and his sons are so honoured; I.G. II2 237, lines 21-2 (Tod, op.cit., I78). Cf.
G. Klaffenbach, Griechische Epigraphik', i966, 8o-8i.
n Suppose for instance that in a parish the parish council (potentially the instrument of
an ambitious local squire) were abolished as an administrative unit, but that the parochial
church council, a religious body on which the same squire might well have a place, remained.
The squire could continue to guide the parish and what went on in it by his membership of
the one council as of the other, and merely by living in the place and being a substantial
property-holder would not be without strong personal influence. What the local inhabitants
might do in parliamentary elections would in the last resort be outside his control however
many local bodies he might belong to and whatever pressures he might try to exercise.
28 Cf. J. A. 0. Larsen, Representative Government in Greek and Roman History, 1955, i8.
29 It is perhaps relevant to mention that my reading of Bradeen's study results in a
mixture of agreement and disagreement even within sections of an argument. For example,
he maintains that it is impossible to believe that the tripartite character of each tribe aimed
to eliminate Eupatrid influences in the localities. With this I agree, as against Lewis, art. cit.,
who emphasises this aspect, and Eliot, op. cit., 145 note I5, who does not discount it. But
I disagree with Bradeen when he goes on to suggest that Cleisthenes' main blow to this end
came in the substitution of deme for phratry, a suggestion only plausible if every other
139
views he discarded, are equally in the right. In the assembly the city was, as we
have seen, generally over-represented.On the Pou)v-it got its fair representationno more and no less. Cleisthenes had from the start a universal view of Attica,
and need not be interpreted as wishing either to enhance or to diminish city
influence, which in these decades before the growth of the VCUTCxOq
6koq may
not have presented itself as a serious issue. If it was an issue, his reforms simply
put it into perspective in the course of their application; it does not appear to
have been the mark at which they were directed.
Cleisthenes' constitution was regarded by later generations as nearer to that
of Solon than to the developed democracy.3' The possibility of such an interpretation gives us cause to rememberthat as regardsboth the formation and the
execution of policy Cleisthenes will have had the council rather than the
assembly in mind as the real organ of government. In this he will have sought
to perpetuate the Solonian arrangements but with a council of changed form.
The development of the ecclesia as an effective sovereign body, with a corresto a probouleutic and executive role dependent
ponding diminution of the Pou)An
on and controlled by the assembly, was no part of his intention,32although it
was perhaps an inherent result which could not be well avoided once the initial
form of local organisation or 'gens-grouping', for whatever purpose, had been eliminated.
Cleisthenes did not 'substitute locality for birth as the basis for citizenship'; rather did he
add it. Birth was strongly emphasised by the 'full' democracy as a qualification (Aristotle,
'AO. JIoX. 26, 4; cf. G. Nenci, Riv. Fil. XCII I964, 173-80); the importance of locality was
less as a qualification than as a vital cog in the machinery. That the territorial division was
made with the Eupatridae in mind, as Bradeen argues, I find hard to accept.
ao G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte II, 405-17;
G. de Sanctis, AXrOE2, 1912, 335-46.
Lewis, loc.cit., 39, remarks that Cleisthenes wished to ensure that 'all citizens, old and new,
would start equal in his new demes and new tribes'. It is in respect of the council, and
perhaps the army, that I take his statement to be valid. But this, and the delimitation of
the trittyes which he examines at length, has nothing to do with the breaking of local
loyalties, which persisted and were meant to persist. It was to ensure that all areas were
justly represented numerically and by every grade of respectable society that the redistribution was set in hand.
31 Aristotle, 'AO. IloX. 29, 3. Cf. Plut. C'i. I5, who speaks of the &ptaroxpaLczof the time
of Cleisthenes.
82 So Larsen, Representative Government, 15 - 'Tlle supremacy of the assembly does not
seem to have been included in the original reforms of Cleistheiies, but to have been introduced a few years later. Before this, the council of five hundred must have been very nearly
supreme in the state'. Cf. eund., Essays . . . G. H. Sabine, I5 - 'Cleisthenes' reforms set off
a chain of reactions that caused the government to evolve rapidly'. Cleisthenes somehow
expected the continuance of an aristocratically-controlled government operating, as formerly, through upper-class associations (-catpetoa), in which he would have the better of
his opponents because he had made the 8 Io;lis C'O,cpoL (Her. V 66). His disappearance
from history may not perhaps be unconnected with his miscalculation and the disappointment of his expectations. That a constitution may take a turn unwelcome to its author
is not without parallel. Jacksonianism was little to the taste of Jefferson and other survivors of the generation of founding fathers; and cf. Mnemosyne XIII I960, 36-17.
I40
steps had been taken.1mIndeed, by its denial in practice of the principle of fair
representation, putting sovereign power in the hands of a body seldom if ever
truly representative of Attica as a whole, it to a considerable extent negated
what Cleisthenes was trying to do. The ecclesia, in becoming sovereign, depended on the same 'growth to confidence', on the basis of the Cleisthenic system,
on which we have already seen ?a"yopLato depend. The two elements are
inseparable, neither of them willed by the lawgiver but both of them the direct
results of his reforms. Both resulted, in fact, from the practice of the council of
500 and the education in complete citizenship which membership of it gave to
rhe ordinary Athenian citizen - an education from which he was so ready to
profit that his opportunity became his duty, and his duty became his cherished
tight.
Corpus Christi College,
A. G. WOODHEAD
Cambridge
u It is in the context of such a development that I.G. Is I
I4 probably belongs - the first
stage in the process of limiting the powers of the council and enhancing those of the
assembly, and this less than a decade after the enactment of the original reforms if, as has
been proposed, the law re-enacts a measure of 502/I B.C. See Hignett, op.cit. 153/5 and
references there quoted. It is also noteworthy that Cleisthenes' assembly may have met no
more than once a month, in contrast to the four times a month of the developed democracy.
The increase is significant of the change in the balance of the constitution and the extent to
which Cleisthenes' expectations miscarried.