DOCSLIB.ORG

Rethinking Athenian Democracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rethinking Athenian Democracy Rethinking Athenian Democracy The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Cammack, Daniela Louise. 2013. Rethinking Athenian Democracy. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10423842 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Rethinking Athenian Democracy A dissertation presented by Daniela Louise Cammack to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2013 © 2013 Daniela Cammack All rights reserved. Professor Richard Tuck Daniela Cammack Abstract Conventional accounts of classical Athenian democracy represent the assembly as the primary democratic institution in the Athenian political system. This looks reasonable in the light of modern democracy, which has typically developed through the democratization of legislative assemblies. Yet it conflicts with the evidence at our disposal. Our ancient sources suggest that the most significant and distinctively democratic institution in Athens was the courts, where decisions were made by large panels of randomly selected ordinary citizens with no possibility of appeal. This dissertation reinterprets Athenian democracy as “dikastic democracy” (from the Greek dikastēs, “judge”), defined as a mode of government in which ordinary citizens rule principally through their control of the administration of justice. It begins by casting doubt on two major planks in the modern interpretation of Athenian democracy: first, that it rested on a conception of the “wisdom of the multitude” akin to that advanced by epistemic democrats today, and second that it was “deliberative,” meaning that mass discussion of political matters played a defining role. The first plank rests largely on an argument made by Aristotle in support of mass political participation, which I show has been comprehensively misunderstood. The second rests on the interpretation of the verb “bouleuomai” as indicating speech, but I suggest that it meant internal reflection in both the courts and the assembly. The third chapter begins the constructive part of the project by comparing the assembly and courts as instruments of democracy in Athens, and the iii fourth shows how a focus on the courts reveals the deep political dimensions of Plato’s work, which in turn suggests one reason why modern democratic ideology and practice have moved so far from the Athenians’ on this score. Throughout, the dissertation combines textual, philological and conceptual analysis with attention to institutional detail and the wider historical context. The resulting account makes a strong case for the relevance of classical Athens today, both as a source of potentially useful procedural mechanisms and as the point of origin of some of the philosophical presuppositions on which the modern conception of democracy and its limits depends. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Table of Contents v Abbreviations vi Acknowledgments xi Epigraphs xiv Introduction. Reasons to Rethink Athenian Democracy 1 Chapter 1. Aristotle on the Virtue of the Multitude 53 Chapter 2. Deliberation in Classical Athens: Not Talking But Thinking 94 Chapter 3. The Most Democratic Branch? The Assembly vs. the Courts 132 Chapter 4. Plato and the Construction of Justice 174 Conclusion. Democracy Ancient and Modern 231 Bibliography 242 v ABBREVIATIONS Adapted from M. H. Hansen, Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), xiii-xvi. Aeschin. Aischines (c. 390-322), rhētor Aesch. Aischylos (c. 525-456), tragic poet Eum. Eumenides (458) Andoc. Andokides (c. 440-c. 390) Ant. Antiphon (c. 480-411), rhētor and leader of the oligarchical revolution in 411 Ar. Aristophanes (c. 445-c. 385), poet of old Attic comedy Ach. Acharnians (425) Av. Birds (414) Eccl. Assemblywomen (393 or 392) Eq. Knights (424) Lys. Lysistrata (411) Nub. Clouds (423) Pax Peace (421) Plut. Wealth (388) Ran. Frogs (405) Thesm. Thesmophoriazousai (411) Vesp. Wasps (422) Arist. Aristotle (384-22), philosopher vi EE Eudemian Ethics HA History of Animals NE Nichomachean Ethics Pol. Politics Rhet. Rhetoric Dem. Demosthenes (384-22), rhētor Din. Deinarchos (c. 360-290), speech-writer Diod. Diodoros of Sicily (first century BC), author of a world history in forty books Diog. Laert. Diogenes Laertios (second century AD), author of compendium of lives of philosophers in ten books Eur. Euripides (c.485-c.406), tragic poet Heracl. Children of Heracles Med. Medea Supp. Suppliant Women (422?) fr. fragment Hdt. Herodotos (c. 484-c. 425?), author of a history of the Persian Wars in nine books Hom. Homer (date uncertain), epic poet Il. Iliad Od. Odyssey Hyp. Hypereides (c. 390-322), rhētor vii Is. Isaios (c.420-c.350), speech-writer Isoc. Isokrates (436-338), author of rhetorical essays and political pamphlets LSJ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) Lycurg. Lykourgos (c.390-24), rhētor Lys. Lysias (c.445-c.380), speech-writer Pl. Plato (427-347), philosopher Alc. 1, 2 Alcibiades 1, 2 Ap. Apology (of Sokrates) Clit. Clitophon Cra. Cratylus Cri. Crito Criti. Critias Def. Definitions Ep. Letters Euthyd. Euthydemus Euthphr. Euthyphro Grg. Gorgias Hipparch. Hipparchus Lch. Laches Lg. Laws Men. Meno viii Menex. Menexenus Phd. Phaedo Phdr. Phaedrus Pol. The Statesman Prt. Protagoras Resp. The Republic Smp. Symposium Thg. Theages Tht. Theaetetus Plut. Plutarch (c.AD45-c.125), author of lives of great men and moral essays Alc. Alkibiades Dem. Demosthenes Lyc. Lykourgos Nic. Nikias Per. Perikles Poll. Pollux (second century AD), professor of rhetoric in Athens and author of a work on Attic vocabulary in ten books Ps. Arist. Pseudo-Aristotle Ath. Pol. Athēnaiōn Politeia or Constitution of the Athenians, composed in Aristotle’s school c.330 Ps. Xen. Pseudo-Xenophon ix Ath. Pol. Athēnaiōn Politeia or Constitution of the Athenians, anonymous political pamphlet composed by an Athenian probably in the 420s R&O Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323, ed. P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) schol. Scholia: Hellenistic or Byzantine notes on classical authors, written in the margins of manuscripts or published separately Theophr. Theophrastos (c.370-c.285), pupil of Aristotle and after his death the head of his school Char. Thirty short character sketches Thuc. Thucydides (c.460-c.395), author of a history of the Peloponnesian War down to 411 in eight books Xen. Xenophon (c.425-c.355), historian and essayist Cyn. On Hunting Eq. Mag. The Cavalry Commander Hell. Hellenika, seven books: history of Greece 411-362 Lac. The Constitution of the Lakedaimonians Mem. Memorabilia, four books: recollections of Sokrates Author’s Note: The transliteration of Greek is notoriously vexed. I have tried to follow Greek lettering as closely as possible, except where the result might prove distracting (e.g. Thoukydides for Thucydides). Translations are from the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise indicated. x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge my debts to the many individuals and institutions who have provided moral, intellectual and financial support during the writing of this dissertation. First I must record my enduring gratitude to Richard Tuck, without whose stimulating teaching, unstinting support, shrewd questioning and sound advice I would not have begun to study political theory, let alone write a dissertation on ancient Greek political thought, a subject about which I knew next to nothing when I started the Ph.D. program at Harvard in 2006. Second, I want to thank Jane Mansbridge, an exemplary teacher and mentor whose unfailing intellectual and personal generosity has been a continual source of profit and inspiration to me since meeting her in 2008. Third, I am greatly indebted to Bryan Garsten, for whose warm personal support and helpful interrogation of my work I already had reason to be grateful before he stepped in, at relatively short notice, to act as the third member of my dissertation committee. I would also like to express warm thanks to the following individuals for the intellectual energy they have invested in my work: Henry Farrell, Eugene Garver, Alex Gourevitch, Katherine Hunt, Sean Ingham, Roland Lamb, Matthew Landauer, Melissa Lane, David Langslow, Adriaan Lanni, Anne Malcolm, Kirsty Milne, Josiah Ober, Siobhan Phillips, Jedediah Purdy, Patrick Riley, Lucas Stanczyk, Ian Simmons, Paul xi Steedman, Sophy Tuck, and Victor Walser. I owe a special debt of thanks to the incomparable George Scialabba, whose kindness and immaculate editing skills have transformed many pages of this dissertation. Needless to say, while these friends deserve thanks for rescuing me from many errors of fact and inadequacies of interpretation and explication, I take full responsibility for all the faults that remain. Earlier versions of Chapter 1, “Aristotle on the Virtue of the Multitude,” were presented at the Harvard Political Theory Workshop and the annual meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, November 18, 2011. I thank Matthew Landauer, Jeffrey Dirk Wilson, Thanassis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Who Freed Athens? J
    Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources Edited by Eric W. Robinson Copyright © 2004 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd The Beginnings of the Athenian Democracv: Who Freed Athens? J Introduction Though the very earliest democracies lildy took shape elsewhere in Greece, Athens embraced it relatively early and would ultimately become the most famous and powerful democracy the ancient world ever hew. Democracy is usually thought to have taken hold among the Athenians with the constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes, ca. 508/7 BC. The tyrant Peisistratus and later his sons had ruled Athens for decades before they were overthrown; Cleisthenes, rallying the people to his cause, made sweeping changes. These included the creation of a representative council (bode)chosen from among the citizens, new public organizations that more closely tied citizens throughout Attica to the Athenian state, and the populist ostracism law that enabled citizens to exile danger- ous or undesirable politicians by vote. Beginning with these measures, and for the next two centuries or so with only the briefest of interruptions, democracy held sway at Athens. Such is the most common interpretation. But there is, in fact, much room for disagree- ment about when and how democracy came to Athens. Ancient authors sometimes refer to Solon, a lawgiver and mediator of the early sixth century, as the founder of the Athenian constitution. It was also a popular belief among the Athenians that two famous “tyrant-slayers,” Harmodius and Aristogeiton, inaugurated Athenian freedom by assas- sinating one of the sons of Peisistratus a few years before Cleisthenes’ reforms - though ancient writers take pains to point out that only the military intervention of Sparta truly ended the tyranny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Deliberation in Ancient Greek Assemblies
    DELIBERATION IN ANCIENT GREEK ASSEMBLIES Daniela Cammack Yale University Classical Philology, forthcoming When an ancient Greek dēmos (“people,” “assembly”) deliberated, what did it do?1 On one view, it engaged in a form of public conversation along the lines theorized by contemporary deliberative democrats; on another, a small number of active citizens debated before a much larger, more passive audience. Both accounts represent deliberation as an external, speech-centered activity rather than an internal, thought-centered one. The democratic ideal, it is suggested, was at least occasional participation in public speech. This article questions that interpretation. A study of βουλεύομαι, “deliberate,” and related terms from Homer to Aristotle reveals three models of deliberation: internal, dialogical, and another that I shall call “audience,” in which a deliberating audience came to a decision after hearing advice. Assembly deliberation was almost always represented as audience deliberation. The dēmos, or listening mass, deliberated (ἐβουλεύετο), that is came to a decision about an action in its power, while those who spoke before it advised (συνεβούλευσε). Citizens did not fall short of a democratic ideal when they did not speak publicly. To the contrary, the dēmos was expected to exercise its authority through internal reflection, culminating in a vote. This argument has profound implications for our conceptualization of ancient Greek democracy and its differences from its modern counterpart. A common criticism of modern representative democracy is that ordinary citizens play too small a part in it, their role typically being limited to voting in periodic elections. Ancient Greek democracy has been represented as more inclusive at least in part because ordinary citizens shaped policy through public speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Aus: Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 83 (1990) 194–214 © Dr
    IAN WORTHINGTON ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DATE OF THE MYTILENE DECREE aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 83 (1990) 194–214 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 194 ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DATE OF THE MYTILENE DECREE The Mytilene decree1 is almost as controversial a document as the circumstances in which it was passed. Its contents, centring on the means by which returning exiles to Mytilene on the island of Lesbos could be reconciled with those resident there, point to a dating, presumably, of 324 BC, the year in which Alexander III of Macedon issued the famous Exiles Decree, applicable to the Greek cities.2 The text of the Exiles Decree is given at Diodorus 18.8.4, although it is quite likely that he did not quote it in its entirety since in this passage he states that all exiles except for those under a curse are to be restored to their native cities; elsewhere (17.109.1), he says those charged with sacrilege and murder are also excluded (cf. Curtius 10.2.4 and Justin 13.5.2), whilst Pseudo-Plutarch (Mor. 221a) indicates that the Thebans were also excluded.3 Although the Exiles Decree is inextricably linked to any assessment of the Mytilene decree, it is the latter which is the subject of this paper. 1 IG xii 2, 6, OGIS 2 = Tod, GHI ii no.201, SEG xiii 434. Especially significant is the new redaction (based on autopsy) and photograph (the first made available) of A.J. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence (Norman: 1980) – hereafter Heisserer, Alexander – pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Studies Grade 7 Week of 4-6-20 1. Log Onto Clever with Your
    Social Studies Grade 7 Week of 4-6-20 1. Log onto Clever with your BPS username and password. 2. Log into Newsela 3. Copy and paste this link into your browser: https://newsela.com/subject/other/2000220316 4. Complete the readings and assignments listed. If you can’t access the articles through Newsela, they are saved as PDFs under the Grade 7 Social Studies folder on the BPSMA Learning Resources Site. They are: • Democracy: A New Idea in Ancient Greece • Ancient Greece: Democracy is Born • Green Influence on U.S. Demoracy Complete the following: Directions: Read the three articles in the text set. Remember, you can change the reading level to what is most comfortable for you. While reading, use the following protocols: Handling changes in your life is an important skill to gain, especially during these times. Use the following supports to help get the most out of these texts. Highlight in PINK any words in the text you do not understand. Highlight in BLUE anything that you have a question about. Write an annotation to ask your question. (You can highlight right in the article. Click on the word or text with your mouse. Once you let go of the mouse, the highlight/annotation box will appear on your right. You can choose the color of the highlight and write a note or question in the annotation box). Pre-Reading Activity: KWL: Complete the KWL Chart to keep your information organized. You may use the one below or create your own on a piece of paper. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OUDVcJA6hjcteIhpA0f5ssvk28WNBhlK/view Post-Reading Activity: After reading the articles, complete a Venn diagram to compare and contrast the democracy of Ancient Greece and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct and Economic Democracy in Ancient Athens and Its Significance Today
    SOCIETY & NATURE, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1992) Direct and Economic Democracy in Ancient Athens and its Significance Today TAKIS FOTOPOULOS Abstract This article examines the intrinsic relationship between direct and economic democracy as it was exemplified in the case of classical Athens. The aim is to show that the final failure of the Athenian democracy was not due, as is usually asserted, to the innate weaknesses of direct democracy but, firstly, due to the fact that it always remained partial, embracing only part of its population, and, second, that it was never completed by a corresponding economic democracy. This fact implies that any attempt today at establishing direct democracy, which is not complemented by economic democracy, is condemned to failure. During the Athenian celebrations for the 2,500th anniversary of Cleisthenes' reforms (where there appeared a ridiculous show of the elite who celebrated, by themselves, the most anti- elitist form of democracy that has ever existed!), as well as in the wider `discussion' that followed on the significance of direct democracy, no reference was made to the relationship between direct and economic democracy. As I will try to show, however, the development of the Athenian democracy amongst its citizens (that is with the slaves and women excluded) kept pace with a determined effort to diminish the socio-economic differences between the citizens. Also, the decline itself of the Athenian democracy was, in my view, directly connected with its failure to become universal, and with the contradiction created by the fact that the political equality which the Athenian democracy had established for its citizens was, in the last instance, founded on economic inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF Datastream
    A Dividing Sea The Adriatic World from the Fourth to the First Centuries BC By Keith Robert Fairbank, Jr. B.A. Brigham Young University, 2010 M.A. Brigham Young University, 2012 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Program in Ancient History at Brown University PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND MAY 2018 © Copyright 2018 by Keith R. Fairbank, Jr. This dissertation by Keith R. Fairbank, Jr. is accepted in its present form by the Program in Ancient History as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date _______________ ____________________________________ Graham Oliver, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date _______________ ____________________________________ Peter van Dommelen, Reader Date _______________ ____________________________________ Lisa Mignone, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date _______________ ____________________________________ Andrew G. Campbell, Dean of the Graduate School iii CURRICULUM VITAE Keith Robert Fairbank, Jr. hails from the great states of New York and Montana. He grew up feeding cattle under the Big Sky, serving as senior class president and continuing on to Brigham Young University in Utah for his BA in Humanities and Classics (2010). Keith worked as a volunteer missionary for two years in Brazil, where he learned Portuguese (2004–2006). Keith furthered his education at Brigham Young University, earning an MA in Classics (2012). While there he developed a curriculum for accelerated first year Latin focused on competency- based learning. He matriculated at Brown University in fall 2012 in the Program in Ancient History. While at Brown, Keith published an appendix in The Landmark Caesar. He also co- directed a Mellon Graduate Student Workshop on colonial entanglements.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded License
    Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek AND ROMAN Political Thought 38 (2021) 74-107 brill.com/polis The Discourses of Identity in Hellenistic Erythrai: Institutions, Rhetoric, Honour and Reciprocity Peter Liddel Senior Lecturer in Ancient History, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK [email protected] Abstract Recent research in the field of New Institutionalist analysis has developed the view that institutions are grounded not only upon authoritative rules but also upon accepted practices and narratives. In this paper I am interested in the ways in which honor- ific practices and accounts of identity set out in ancient Greek inscriptions contribute towards the persistence of polis institutions in the Hellenistic period. A diachronic survey of Erythraian inscriptions of the classical and Hellenistic periods gives an impression of the adaptation and proliferation of forms of discourse established in the classical period. It demonstrates the ongoing prominence of the rhetoric of identity in conversations that went on not only between peer polities and within real or imagined kinship groups but also in negotiations between powerful and weak state entities and in inward-facing discourses on euergetism. Keywords identity – rhetoric – euergetism – institutionalism – reciprocity – honours – eunoia – Erythrai 1 Introduction. Identity and Practices: the Case of Reciprocity1 In a recent and important monograph, M. Ehala argues that identities (both collectively and individual) can be viewed as a set of performative ‘signs’ 1 I am grateful to the organisers of the 2017 Kraków conference and especially Jakub Filonik for giving me the opportunity to present a paper on this theme, for their warm hospitality and for their helpful comments on this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • I Give Permission for Public Access to My Honors Paper And
    I give permission for public access to my Honors paper and for any copying or digitization to be done at the discretion of the College Archivist and/or the College Librarian. Signed_____________________________________________ Mills McArthur .......................................................................... Date __________________________ Coordinating the Athenian Fleet: Cooperation and Common Knowledge Robert Samuel Mills McArthur Greek and Roman Studies Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree with Honors in Greek and Roman Studies Rhodes College 2013 ii This Honors paper by ______________________________has been read and approved for Honors in ____________________________________. Dr. Joseph Jansen Project Advisor ___________________________________ Dr. Geoff Bakewell Second Reader ____________________________________ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ! This project owes much to the graciously-provided assistance of my professors, family, and friends. My greatest thanks goes to Dr. Joe Jansen. As my advisor on this research project for over a year, his aid has been instrumental to the formulation, development, and completion of my thesis. Much gratitude is due to Dr. Geoff Bakewell, my second reader, who has provided many valuable insights along the way. I must also thank Dr. Kenny Morrell, who aided me in my explorations of potential research topics and helped to arrange the logistics of my summer research in Greece. Further thanks are owed to the Greek and Roman Studies department of Rhodes College as a whole, which not only provided the utmost support throughout my time as their student, but facilitated my research by granting me the Jeanne Scott Varnell Award in Classical Languages. ! The staff of both the Center for Hellenic Studies at Nafplio and the classics library of the University of Texas at Austin provided further assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Greek Democracy Demokratia and the Demos
    ANCIENT GREEK DEMOCRACY Directions: write 3 facts from each heading that explain the organization or process of democracy in Greece. In the 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes introduced a system of political reforms that he called demokratia, or “rule by the people.” This system was comprised of three separate institutions: the ekklesia, a sovereign governing body that wrote laws and dictated foreign policy; the boule, a council of representatives from the ten Athenian tribes; and the dikasteria, the popular courts in which citizens argued cases before a group of lottery-selected jurors. Although this Athenian democracy would survive for only two centuries, Cleisthenes’ invention was one of ancient Greece’s most enduring contributions to the modern world. DEMOKRATIA AND THE DEMOS “In a democracy,” the Greek historian Herodotus wrote, “there is, first, that most splendid of virtues, equality before the law.” It was true that Cleisthenes’ demokratia abolished the political distinctions between the Athenian aristocrats who had long monopolized the political decision-making process and the middle- and working-class people who made up the army and the navy (and whose incipient discontent was the reason Cleisthenes introduced his reforms in the first place). However, the “equality” Herodotus described was limited to a small segment of the Athenian population. For example, in Athens in the middle of the 4th century there were about 100,000 citizens (Athenian citizenship was limited to men and women whose parents had also been Athenian citizens), about 10,000 metoikoi, or “resident foreigners” and 150,000 slaves. Out of all those people, only male citizens who were older than 18 were a part of the demos, meaning only about 40,000 people could participate in the democratic process.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Classical Athenian Democracy and Democracy Today: Culture, Knowledge, Power
    07 Chapter 122 1190 6/4/04 11:24 am Page 145 7 Classical Athenian Democracy and Democracy Today: Culture, Knowledge, Power JOSIAH OBER Princeton University THE YEAR 2002 IS NOT ONLY the British Academy’s Centenary, it also marks the semi-centennial of the publication of Charles Hignett’s influ- ential study of the History of the Athenian Constitution.1 That book is primarily concerned with political institutions as nodes of formal author- ity and with the distinction between ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ forms of ancient democracy—the latter marked by the active participation by ordinary working men in the processes of government. I first read Hignett as a student in the 1970s, but a quarter-century later I find it is still frequently included on university course reading lists—I counted 150 ‘Google hits’ at a recent check. The issues I will raise this evening seem to me especially important in light of the enduring, indeed apparently growing popularity of Greek democracy as a topic in school and university curricula.2 How, fifty years after Hignett’s History, should we explain to our students the nature and meaning of ancient Athenian democracy? Are questions about institutions as formal nodes of authority and about the development of ‘radicalism’ Read at the University of Bristol 28 October 2002. 1 Charles Hignett, A history of the Athenian Constitution to the end of the fifth century BC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952). 2 There are currently at least three collections of essays on Athenian democracy recently published or in preparation, designed for course use (edited by P.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek Democracy
    Greek Democracy Richard Kraut Northwestern University 1. Rule by the people: the trajectory of an idea Democracy in the modern world rests on concepts that can be traced back to ancient Greece and more specifically to ideas that prevailed in Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. The very words used in modern European languages to name this system of government are borrowed from the Greek dêmokratia, a compound designating people-power (dêmos, kratos). (Dêmos is ambiguous: a fundamental point we will return to in section 3.) It retains that meaning in contemporary political discourse: a democracy is a political system in which power is authorized by and answerable to the people. If we believe, as many people now do, that political power ought to be so authorized, because this is the best, perhaps the only legitimate, form of government, then we should recognize how close we are, on this score, to the citizens of ancient Athens and other early democracies. But although democracy is now widely (though not universally) accepted as the ideal to which nations should aspire, it was, both in the ancient Greek world and for much of European history, a bitterly contested institution, praised by some and despised by others. In the ancient world, critics of democracy developed a full and systematic account of its defects. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates depicts democracy as nearly the worst form of rule: though superior to tyranny, it is inferior to every other political arrangement. (As we will see, however, he speaks favorably of several democratic institutions in his later work, Laws.) Aristotle classifies democracy, along with oligarchy (rule of oligoi – the few) and tyranny, as a deformed constitutional arrangement.
    [Show full text]