Leadership and Power Dynamics in Democratic Athens

Classical Review, 2014

1986

The magistrates, priests and families attested between 167/6 B.C. and A.D. 13/4 belong to a governing class which may be regarded as a large civic class and several partly overlapping elites: a political elite, comprised of the members of the Areopagus, as well as a religious elite, a liturgical elite, a military (or ephebic elite) and a cultural-educational elite. The political elite is the most exclusive segment of the governing class. The other elites and the civic class form a descending hierarchy of peripheral families. In the course of seven chapters, the following conclusions are presented: (1) the governing class is in a constant state of flux as new families are recruited from below or through the admission of new citizens to Athens; (2) the analysis of the careers (or sequence of offices held by the members of the governing class) shows that certain types of offices are usually held at a particular age or point in an individual's public life, and changes in the number and type of offices available to an individual reflect changes in the nature of political life at Athens during this period; (3) during the generation following the acquisition of Delos in 167/6 B.C., pro-Roman families of the established aristocracy are predominant in the ranks of the governing class at both Athens and on Delos; (4) these families soon decline and the recruitment and composition of the governing class evolve during the transition to the second generation following c. 130 B.C.; (5) the revolution of 88/7 B.C. is an indirect consequence of demographic changes at Athens during the preceding generation; (6) during the Roman civil wars the governing class is found to be divided into competing factions; (7) finally, the emergence of a new and primarily hereditary governing elite may be documented during the reign of Augustus. An appendix tabulates all dated Athenian magistrates (and inscriptions) during this period. Other appendices discuss several chronological difficulties, the ephebic instructors and undated archons. i i i I must first thank Dr. D.J. Geagan, who suggested this topic for my dissertation and directed me in its completion; I especially thank him for his critical and careful reading of the final drafts. I would also like to thank Dr. J. Trueman, who chaired the supervisory committee, and Dr. T. Hoey of the Department of Classics, who has always been very helpful. The assistance of the following institutions is also gratefully acknowledged: The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for a doctoral fellowship in 1983-84; the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, where, in 1984-85, the research for this dissertation was completed; the Thompson-Waisglass Fund for a bursary which paid my fees at the American School; the Program Committee of the Canadian Archaeological Institute at Athens for awarding a fellowship which enabled me to reside in Athens during 1984-85; and Memorial University of Newfoundland. I would also like to mention here Dr. A.G. McKay of the Department of Classics, whose support and kindness helped make my graduate study at McMaster University both challenging and rewarding. Finally, I thank my wife, Anne-Marie Lewis, for all her help. iv Table of Contents Preface 1. The Nature of the Governing Class 2. The Offices of the Governing Class 3. Governing Families and the Cleruchy on Delos 4. The Governing Class in Transition 5. The Revolution of 88/7 B.C. 6. Athens During the Roman Civil Wars 7. Conclusion: The Governing Class Under Augustus Appendix A.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

This paper explores the stratagems of the Athenian oligarchs on their way to power in 411 BC. It focuses on political propaganda-- the cynical manipulation of democratic ideals, principles and procedures for the purpose of promoting oligarchy as a different form of democracy. The study challanges the widely accepted view of a moderate Theramenist faction in an attempt to demonstrate that until the oligarchs have usurped power there is no justification for differentiating between extremists and moderates among them. As to the historiography of the revolution, the paper argues that, for all its weaknesses and deficiencies, on the whole Thucydides' account is a genuine attempt to free history from the distortion of propaganda, whereas the parallel account of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia , despite recent attempts at its rehabilitation and validation, appears by and large to have achieved precisely the opposite effect -- perpetuating by means of systematic omission and commission the historical distortion generated by propaganda.

Unpublished, 1996

In my thesis I examine certain aspects of the political history of Athens in the early Hellenistic period, that is after the battle of Chaironeia in 338 B.C. and until the late 260s. For Athens this was a transitional period; she had to face a completely new political reality: she was no longer the great power of the fifth or even the fourth century B.C., Macedonia rose to power, then Alexander created a huge empire and his death triggered endless struggles for power among his Successors, in which Athens found herself involved. Independent foreign policy then on the part of Athens was impossible; on the other hand, diplomacy became more delicate and demanding than ever. I focus on the ways in which the Athenian leadership (the generals and the orators) adjusted to the circumstances. Firstly, I have examined the role of the generals in diplomacy in order to establish that they did assume increased responsibilities. Secondly, I have examined the role of the orators in the formation of relations with the various monarchs, in an attempt to trace the changes that Athenian diplomacy underwent. Finally, I have dealt with an important aspect of the orators’ career and an important instrument in diplomacy: the passing of honours for kings and their officials as well as for Athenian citizens. My purpose was to establish the ways in which euergesia (benefaction) was affected by the circumstances as well as the influence it exercised on foreign relations. The aim of my thesis is to demonstrate that the Athenian political system did survive in this period; Athens proved to be quite flexible, capable of responding to the new situation; whatever changes were made, they were due to practical considerations, without affecting the substance of the system.

Valuing Others in Classical Antiquity

The question of what the ancient Greeks can tell us about democracy can be answered by reference to three fields that have traditionally been pursued with little reference to one another: ancient history, classical political theory, and political science. These fields have been coming into more fruitful contact over the last 20 years, as evidenced by a spate of interdisciplinary work. Historians, political theorists, and political scientists interested in classical Greek democracy are increasingly capable of leveraging results across disciplinary lines. As a result, the classical Greek experience has more to tell us about the origins and definition of democracy, and about the relationship between participatory democracy and formal institutions, rhetoric, civic identity, political values, political criticism, war, economy, culture, and religion.

The Ancient Athenian political system has been subject to extensive research from different perspectives of its criticisms and praises as well as its applications to different eras of democracy. According to Democracy is derived from the words demos meaning ‘the people’ or ‘the many’ and Kratos, which means ‘power’ or ‘rule’ - summing up to ‘rule by the people’ - hence the people (strictly male, educated and Athenian) were given the power to solve different problems (Blackwell, 2003). Known not only as the earliest democracy evolving from a complex society, Athenian Democracy is also known as the best documented historical example of a large-scale direct democracy that has operated over time as a state government (Ober, 1991: 28).

Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek and Roman Political Thought, 2019

Democratic Athens seems to have been the first place in the Greek world where there developed systematically a positive theorising of kingship. Initially this might seem surprising, since the Athenians had a strong tradition of rejecting one-man-rule. The study of kingship among the political thinkers of the fifth and fourth century has not received much scholarly attention until recent years, and particularly not the striking fact that it was democratic Athens, or at least writers directing themselves to an Athenian democratic audience, that produced a positive theorising of kingship. The aim of this essay, then, is not only to show how the political language around kingship became a way of forming definitions of what democracy was and was not, but also (more significantly), among some fourth-century intellectuals, of shaping new ideas about what it could be.

The Promotion of Knowledge, 2004

This chapter presents the text of a lecture on the growing popularity of Greek democracy as a topic in school and university curricula. It argues that that the modern penchant for reading the meaning of democracy through the lens of the authoritative institutions of government has had a substantial impact on the way ancient Greek democracy has been understood. It suggests that the study of the ancient Athenian democracy should be conducted with a cultural/ideological approach rather than a constitutional approach.

JIHI 13 no. 26, 2024

Athenian democracy, with its emphasis on direct citizen participation and the practice of lottery-based selection, is often idealised as an innovative and counter-democratic model, offering alternatives to modern systems shaped by economic monopolies and global information networks. Ancient historians play a pivotal role in this discourse, not merely as observers but as active participants, tasked with providing historically informed insights to enhance public understanding. The reception of Athenian democracy has undergone significant evolution over centuries,adapting to meet the shifting needs of political ideologies and discourses. The article challenges the mythologization of iconic symbols such as Pericles’ FuneralOration and the kleroterion, emphasising the importance of contextualising thesewithin their true historical settings. Rather than a static or idealised system, Athenian democracy is better understood as a historically evolving process, comprising complex structures, procedures, and networks of social groupings that facilitated democratic engagement. It is in these elements—multiple, intersecting groups enabling collective governance—that Athenian democracy holds potential lessons for modern political systems.