DOCSLIB.ORG

577 the Novelist Leslie Poles Hartley Famously Wrote

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
577 the Novelist Leslie Poles Hartley Famously Wrote Book Reviews 577 Dean Hammer, ed., (2015) A Companion to Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. xviii + 531 pp. $205.95 ISBN 9781444336016 (hbk). The novelist Leslie Poles Hartley famously wrote: ‘The past is a foreign coun- try; they do things differently there’.1 Published in the Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World series, Dean Hammer’s A Companion to Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic consciously bears witness to Hartley’s observation (pp. 9, 504). Greeks and Romans did do things differently from us. For example, Athenian theater-goers were not concerned with identifying the original, unal- loyed text that could be attributed to a single playwright (p. 438), while Roman listeners of public speeches would fail to be persuaded if the speaker did not refer to the ‘fluid, flexible, and diverse’ set of ancient customs and moral val- ues (mos maiorum) upon which the political structure of the Republic relied (pp. 218, 223). Yet, the past sometimes looks eerily familiar. Athenian play- wrights ‘bypassed argument in favor of the creation of powerful and in some cases unforgettable images … difficult then to undo or to counter effectively’ (p. 443). We can affirm their temptation to do so, living as we do in a spin- doctored world saturated with images. Roman ‘theater was an informal polling place that allowed the ruling class to gauge the sentiments of a broad cross- section of the populace’ (p. 455). It is easy to say the same thing about the ongoing success of the musical Hamilton (2015), first staged in the selfsame year of this volume’s publication, and which has coincided with a moment in US politics of heightened anxiety about history and identity. The past might also seem simultaneously familiar and alien. Athenian democracy was ‘a sys- tem that was maximally participatory and maximally amateurish’ (p. 170). It is hard not to think of the political amateurs who, precisely because of their status as such, have now taken center-stage in liberal democratic polities. Yet there is little that is participatory about our representative regimes, which are also outfitted with professional judiciaries and bureaucracies. By contrast to the Athenian demos, ‘the Roman people [populus] had no legitimate way of conveying or expressing its views without formalized leadership’ (p. 154). On its face, this comes across as a familiar description of representative politics in which ‘the people’ are – and often fail to be – represented by elected or appointed officials; upon reflection, it could also be an alien observation about the acute hierarchies that existed in Roman society and which were reflected in its ancient constitution. In its very existence the volume is a shot across the 1 L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between (New York: New York Review Books Classics, 2002 [1953]), p. 17. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/20512996-12340182Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 04:48:04PM via free access 578 Book Reviews bow aimed at those who fall into the fashionable practice of regarding compar- ative political thought as an enterprise which necessarily involves a so-called ‘non-Western’ civilization. I have presented the claims about Athens and Rome as such to mirror the organization of the Companion, which spans thirteen thematic parts and alter- nates between a chapter on Greece and a chapter on Rome written in large part by tenured or emeritus scholars. The nearly identical titles given to the pair chapters in each theme encourages the reader to read through both chapters, while the total length of each part also pushes in this direction: each pair runs between thirty and forty pages and, with the exception of Stewart (pp. 405-427), each chapter is broken up into multiple subsections. As is typical of Blackwell Companions, each entry is usefully accompanied by extensive ‘References’ and ‘Further Reading’ sections. Students of informal norms, politics, and drama as well as those interested in origins, law, and visual culture will all find rel- evant essays which might serve either as introductions or as surveys. Examples in the first category are Konstan’s standalone essay on comparative politi- cal thought (pp. 8-19) and Morstein-Marx’s essay on contional audiences in Rome (pp. 294-309), which pairs nicely with supporting arguments for Roman people power by Arena (pp. 217-238) and Tatum (pp. 262-8), and against by Champion (pp. 330-334). Examples in the second category are Fisher’s essay on social values in democratic Athens and non-democratic Sparta (pp. 195-216), Ligt’s thought-provoking essay titled ‘Production, Trade, and Consumption in the Roman Republic’ (pp. 368-385), and Balot and Atkison’s surefooted tour of the status of women and slaves across theater, oratory, and philosophy (pp. 389-404). Hammer has the first and the last word in the Companion. In the Introduction (pp. 1-7) and Conclusion (pp. 503-519) he raises questions about central political theoretical concepts such as freedom (eleutheria/libertas) and power (dunamis/potestas). Together with his attempt to connect discus- sions about power in international relations theory to those in political theory (pp. 510-515), Hammer demonstrates the importance of comparative political thought to political science. Doing so somewhat mitigates the tension in the volume between the focus on democracy and republicanism, on the one hand, and the broad signifiers of ‘Greece’ and ‘Rome’, on the other. Due to the focus on democracy, Greece is often equivalent to Athens. When Athens is not the focus, as in Fisher’s dual emphasis on Athens and Sparta (pp. 195-216), and in Tandy’s exposition of the wider historical and geographical economic context of Greece (pp. 349-367), the reader gets much more than ‘Greek Democracy’. Sicilian Syracuse, described elsewhere by Ober as ‘a polis that seemed in some ways to be Athens’ twin’, might have served as another example of Greek Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from 35 Brill.com09/30/2021(2018) 569-611 04:48:04PM via free access Book Reviews 579 democracy.2 The authors who write on the Roman Republic cover a period of five hundred years where ‘Rome’ and ‘Roman’ are shifting signifiers (p. 482). Indeed, there exists a heightened awareness among these scholars that the evi- dence is lacking or, rather, that the preponderance of evidence comes from the later centuries of the Republic (pp. 46, 146). The Companion is not only conceived as an exercise in comparative polit- ical thought, but its editor presents the volume as having been executed as such. Hammer writes that the ‘authors of each of the parallel chapters worked with each other throughout the project, organizing each chapter with an eye toward the other, reading each other’s chapters, and ultimately highlighting comparisons that emerge from each of the cases’ (p. 2). The Companion does not vindicate Hammer’s claim. The habitual practice of each author refer- ring to its pair chapter in the first and/or last section of their essays is rarely more than superficial; an exception is Farenga’s segue to Schofield in Part III ‘Dêmokratia and Res Publica’ (p. 110), which, however, goes unreciprocated. In his stimulating survey of visual culture in Athens (pp. 461-481), Hölscher makes no reference whatsoever to the pair essay by Perry. In Part V on law, a ripe moment to think comparatively was missed. Cohen argues for the partici- patory amateurism of agonistic judicial practice in Athens (pp. 167-178) while in the pair essay, Williamson presents a more sanguine account of Rome’s legal and extra-legal procedures by comparison to other entries on Rome (pp. 179- 192). A parallel which might have been discussed, given how much the two authors make of it, is the absence of a professional judiciary in both Athens and Rome (pp. 171-172; 185-187). The focus on participatory communities is largely achieved throughout the book. A successful instance is the pair of essays in Part VIII on rhetoric where Roisman and Morstein-Marx attend to an institutional manifestation of their topic. Roisman discusses epideictic oratory in Athens using the funeral oration as an example (pp. 277-293). He shows how Athenian citizens were ‘judged by the way they enact their membership in the community, especially in the military sphere; this performance establishes their character and reputation and those of their city’ (p. 282; see also the parallel discussion by Balot and Atkison, pp. 394-396). Morstein-Marx shows how rhetorical performances by Roman senators in public meetings (contiones) were constructive of republi- can ideology. Nonetheless, this ‘steeply hierarchical speech-situation’ could, in practice, lead the people to vote to reject Senatorial instruction (p. 307). Other 2 J. Ober, The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), p. 157; there is no entry for ‘Syracuse’ in the index of the Companion. Polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political ThoughtDownloaded from35 (2018)Brill.com09/30/2021 569-611 04:48:04PM via free access 580 Book Reviews entries could have gone further in delineating the participatory communities they address. For example, in the various and useful things that are said about Athenian drama (Fisher, Sidwell) and the Roman comedian Plautus whose plays ‘reinscribe the contest [between master and slave] in its complexity’ (Stewart, p. 421) inter alios, the authors fall short of the participatory aspect of the communities they discuss and which Hammer sets. For they say nothing about the staging of these plays. If, however, it is sound to assume that when writing a play the playwright always has in mind the stage or setting upon which his plays will be performed, that is, the stage upon which the actors will participate, then a Companion that focuses explicitly on participatory commu- nities ought to have addressed the stagecraft of the plays.3 O’Bryhim does go some way in giving the reader a sense of what happened on the Roman stage (pp.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • A Companion to Ancient Greek Government
    A COMPANION TO ANCIENT GREEK GOVERNMENT BLACKWELL COMPANIONS TO THE ANCIENT WORLD This series provides sophisticated and authoritative overviews of periods of ancient history, genres of classical literature, and the most important themes in ancient culture. Each volume comprises approximately twenty-five and forty concise essays written by individual scholars within their area of specialization. The essays are written in a clear, provocative, and lively manner, designed for an international audience of scholars, students, and general readers. ANCIENT HISTORY A Companion to Greek Religion Edited by Daniel Ogden Published A Companion to the Roman Army A Companion to the Classical Tradition Edited by Paul Erdkamp Edited by Craig W. Kallendorf A Companion to the Roman Republic A Companion to Roman Rhetoric Edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Edited by William Dominik and Jon Hall Morstein-Marx A Companion to Greek Rhetoric A Companion to the Roman Empire Edited by Ian Worthington Edited by David S. Potter A Companion to Ancient Epic A Companion to the Classical Greek World Edited by John Miles Foley Edited by Konrad H. Kinzl A Companion to Greek Tragedy A Companion to the Ancient Near East Edited by Justina Gregory Edited by Daniel C. Snell ACompaniontoLatinLiterature A Companion to the Hellenistic World Edited by Stephen Harrison Edited by Andrew Erskine A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought A Companion to Late Antiquity Edited by Ryan K. Balot Edited by Philip Rousseau ACompaniontoOvid A Companion to Ancient History Edited by Peter E. Knox Edited by Andrew Erskine A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language A Companion to Archaic Greece Edited by Egbert Bakker Edited by Kurt A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Greek Democracy Before Aristotle
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1943 The Theory of Greek Democracy Before Aristotle Edmund P. Burke Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Burke, Edmund P., "The Theory of Greek Democracy Before Aristotle" (1943). Master's Theses. 77. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/77 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1943 Edmund P. Burke THE THEORY OF GREEK DEMOCRACY BEFORE ARISTOTLE • BY EDMUND P. BURKE, S.J. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL li'ULFIT.IMENT OF THE REQ,UIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN LOYOLA UNIVERSITY JULY 1943, VITA Edmund P. Burke, S.J., was born in Chicago, Illinois, on August 4, 1916. He moved to Oak Park, Illinois, and graduated from Ascension Grammar School in 1930. The following three years, from 1930 to 1933, he attended ~uigley Preparatory Seminary, Chicago, Illinois. He graduated from St. Ignatius High School in that city in 1934. In September of that year he entered the Milford Novitiate of the Society of Jesus, attending the Arts College of Xavier Univer­ sity, Cincinnati, Ohio, from 1934 to 1938. In 1938 he transferred to West Baden College of Loyola University, where he received his degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Things You Really Should Know About Ancient Greek Democracy Transcript
    Ten Things You Really Should Know About Ancient Greek Democracy Transcript Date: Tuesday, 27 September 2016 - 6:00PM Location: Barnard's Inn Hall 27 September 2016 Ten Things You Should Know About Ancient Greek Democracy Professor Paul Cartledge Demokratia = Demos + Kratos 1. What is the Bulgarian for ‘democracy’? The word – which came into English from French – is derived ultimately from an ancient Greek portmanteau word coined probably in Athens and became as ubiquitous in the ancient Greek world as it is today. BUT it could assume very different shades of meaning, then as now: see below for antiquity. Today, it almost always means indirect, representative democracy, usually republican. Contrast in antiquity: see below. When was Demokratia coined? Probably c. 475 BCE. In Aeschylus’s tragedy Suppliant Women (463 BCE?) a periphrasis is used ‘he kratousa kheir tou demou’, the controlling/decisive hand of the People, that implies the existence of the term demokratia, but this is not actually attested until the 420s (Herodotus’s Histories 6.131, but see below; ‘Old Oligarch’ Constitution of the Athenians, passim). More interesting perhaps: what was the Latin for ‘demokratia’? 2. Kratos = Power, Strength, Grip. (A speaking character in the tragedy Prometheus Bound attributed to Aeschylus is so named; he is the henchman of tyrant Zeus. Also a character in the videogame God of War). But Demos was ambiguous/ambivalent: either i. the People (all the people) or ii. the Masses (majority of the people, specifically the poor majority of the citizens), so demokratia can be translated/interpreted as either i. vaguely ‘government of the people by the people for the people’ (Abraham Lincoln) or ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 4: Ancient Greek Democracy
    Lesson 4: Ancient Greek Democracy How did the election and voting system work in Ancient Greece? The Assembly was open to all and voting was made by a show of hands. Random lotteries decided who took their place as members of the Council and Jurors within the popular courts. Random lotteries meant that both rich and poor had the same chance of being elected and that wealthy men could not get away with blackmailing others to earn their political position. Questions to consider: 1. Who made decisions before democracy was introduced? 2. Who introduced a system of democracy or ‘demokratia’ in Ancient Athens? 3. What was the role of the Assembly in Ancient Athens? 4. Why did the Boule (Council) hold so much power? 5. What were the benefits of using a random lottery to distribute political roles? Who was involved in Ancient Greek politics? Free men who were classed as Athenian citizens ere allowed to vote in Ancient Athens. A woman’s place in society depended on the standing of her husband and father. Women were not viewed as citizens and were absent from the democratic system. This meant that they could not have a say in any political decisions that were made. Women were not the only people who were excluded from political roles in Ancient Athens: Slaves Foreigners (even if they lived in Athens and contributed to their society) Children (up until the age of 13) Discussion: Do you think women in Ancient Athens should have been given their right to vote? Children in Ancient Athens were considered to be adults at the age of 13.
    [Show full text]