The fear of tyranny in Athens

Transcription

1 The fear of tyranny in Athens By Nash Hurdle England Autumn, 2017!1

2 What was in theory democracy, was in fact rule by the first man (Thuc. 2.65). How significant was the first man for Athenian political processes. The Athenian political system evolved drastically through it s course of existence, it saw many types of constitution, and arguably never truly settled on which was best. The fifth century is probably the most tumultuous period of history for the Athenians and this directly effected how it s political processes functioned. In the late 460s Ephialtes reforms transformed the polis into a democracy, yet there was still a reliance on a leading man. Thus, the first man or champion of the polis emerged. Mitchell points out that Athenian democracy relied on these champions 1, though the perfect formula for a first man is unknown 2, the most important part seems to be having the acceptance of the demos; Morrison argues that it is the demos who still hold the supreme power, yet they are simply led by the men who are most suited for leadership by talent and position 3. However, these champions present an obvious and well documented paradox to democracy, how can the polis claim to enforce the rule of the many when the many are actually led by the champion? Well, Mitchell argues that a practical democracy needed these champions, even though competition between would-be-champions was destructive as it led to internal war and goes on to point out that For Thucydides the danger of the champion in democracy is always present, but not just as the would-be tyrant, but also as the disruptive cause of factionalism and stasis 4. In this essay I will investigate how some individuals ascended to the position of first man and how some, who had the potential to reach this position fell by the wayside due to tensions in Athens rooted in the fear of a 1 Mitchell (2008) pp Though authors such as Thucydides point out qualities that are desirable and undesirable in a first man, it was not always as simple as just having the right qualities. Thucydides expresses this point mostly through his depictions of the characters of Pericles and Alcibiades, the good monarch, and bad tyrant. 3 4 Morrison (1950) p.76. Mitchell (2008) pp.26-9.!2

3 tyrannical regime. More importantly, how significant these first men were to the political system of the polis. The tyrant is a figure that seems to be present in much Athenian political thought, Rosivach argues that the reason behind this deeply ingrained aversion to tyrants is clearly rooted in the historical experience of the Peisistratids 5. After the fall of the Peisistratids, democracy arose and became the opposition to tyranny though there was no specific figure associated with tyranny, Rosivach points out that the fear of the tyrant is more an abstraction of monarchic government. 6 However, Rosivach interestingly mentions Thucydides note that the Peisistratids did not dramatically alter the Solonian constitution, instead they controlled Athens through paraconstituional means ranging from marriage alliances to intimidation, and especially by seeing to it that key positions in the government were occupied by men who were well-disposed to the tyrant 7, this makes us question Thucydides opinions as to the effectiveness of the Solonian system. Nonetheless, we see why the Athenians feared the rule of the few, in fact Rosivach says that it was the rule of the few, and not the one that so worried the Athenians at this time. 8 Once the Peisistratids were deposed by the Alcmaeonid family (with help of the Spartans), Cleisthenes became a prominent figure in Athens, and instituted a set of reforms in 508/7 that pushed Athens towards democracy (though it is not fully implemented until Ephilates reforms) 9 and away from the oligarchy 10 that had 5 Rosivach (1988) p.46. The term Peisistratids refers to the three tyrant rulers Peisistratos and his sons, Hipparchus and Hippias, this period ( BC) is as Rosivach points out, is the only real example of tyranny in the history of Athens. 6 Rosivach (1988) p.46. Thus we see how the reign of the Peisistratids deeply effected not only the politics, but also instilled fear of a certain type of constitution so deeply that it almost became the boogeyman, an invisible enemy that is always lurking trying to find an opportunity to present itself Rosivach (1988) p.47. Rosivach (1988) p.43. Ober (2007) p Rosivach (2008) p.48. The term oligarchy did not exist at this point, it only arose later in the course of the fifth century.!3

4 existed before. So arguably here, we have an example of one of the very first champions of Athens. Herodotus praises Cleisthenes 11 stating that Athens was great before, but after liberation from tyranny, she became greater still. Two important changes are made by these reforms, the office of strategos returns to it s classical form in 501 BC, meaning that the board now consists of 10 generals, elected annually (one from each tribe) rather than the one Polemarchos. And the Ostracism was established in order to counter the threat of tyranny 12. The next first man we see arise and contribute in a significant way to Athenian democracy is Ephialtes, whom instituted a series of reforms to diminish the power of the Areopagus. He organised pay for public officeholders, made requirements for holding office more equal, and redefined citizenship. 13 It is certainly arguable that Ephialtes was the first true champion of democracy, though his assassination unfortunately makes this point less impactful, he certainly was significant to the polis political processes. Fortunately(?) though, Pericles assumed the mantle of champion after his death 14. The reign of Pericles is certainly an example of the first man being an extremely significant instrument in the Athenian political system 15. However, Pericles first had to overcome his opposition 16. This draws us to Pericles point in Thucydides (2.37) that public preferment depends on individual distinction and is determined largely by merit rather than rotation. This shows that the first man itself seems to have become a part of Athenian political thought. We therefore must ask if the emergence of democracy inevitably leads to the ascendance Hdt Mitchell (2008) p.28.; Aristot. Ath. Pol ; Morrison (1950) p.76. Morrison also notes that the principle of rotation in office had the same intention Plut. Cim. 15. Plut. Cim Mitchell (2008) p.26. says he was undoubtedly the most important political of the two decades from the mid 440s to the early 420s. 16 Mitchell (2008) p.26. After the ostracism of Thucydides son of Melesias, Pericles held the office of Strategos for fifteen consecutive years.; Plut. Per !4

5 of a first man 17. It seems that there is an overarching (not unanimous) sense of agreement in the sources that this democratic environment inevitably leads to the emergence of a first man, at the very least, that the environment leads to competition among young individuals which has the potential to lead to internal crises. An example of this is Plutarch s account of the battle between Pericles and Thucydides in 444 BC, eventually leading to the ostracism of Thucydides in 442 BC, showing how the ostracism is used to control power. Yet the interesting thing about this story is that Pericles won this battle with his words, by getting the people on his side, which brings us back to Morrison s point that the demos still had the supreme power, suggesting that the first man may not be as significant as one would imagine. Pericles, however is an extraordinary example of a first man and should be treated as such. His guidance was so significant, that even after the people expressed their outrage and punished him with a fine, they still relied so heavily on him that he was re-elected the following year. 18 It was long ago established that Pericles was the unrivalled first man; in fact, if not in name, a monarch 19 hence why i call him an extraordinary example of the champion of Athenian democracy. Mitchell informs us that Pericles believed the state should be led by the best men and that the democratic principles of office rotation should not hamper the efforts of these great men 20, this claim almost makes Pericles sound like an oligarch, yet Morrison assures us that Pericles was none of these [tyrant, Aristocratic or oligarchic ruler] 21. So, we have a picture of the archetypal good monarch with Pericles, an idea as to why he was so significant to the Athenian demos is arguably because, in times of severe peril and hardship, it was far easier for the entire demos to have a scapegoat to blame, 17 Mitchell (2008) argues that because democracy encouraged ambition and competition among individuals, the rise of the first man is inevitable.; Thuc as is characteristic of crowd behaviour, they elected him general once more and entrusted all their affairs to his management Thuc Westlake (1968); Rood (1998): In Mitchell (2008) Mitchell (2008) p.21. Morrison (1950) p.76.!5

6 rather than the entire demos be blamed for Athens shortcomings, we see this repeatedly in Thucydides. In 2.59 Thucydides tells us that under the double burden of plague and war, the Athenians suffered a change of mind. They now began to blame Pericles for persuading them to war and held him responsible yet when everything stops going the Athenians way, it is convenient they have someone around to be blamed. The ironic part is that even through these events, they needed Pericles and luckily for the demos he stayed loyal to them, after all Thucydides states that under [Pericles] guidance the city reached it s greatest height (2.65). We see a similar occurrence with the ostracism of Themistocles, Plutarch tells us that he was ostracised partly due to his involvement with a re-fortification plan of Athens, and because he spoke with arrogance, and so those jealous of him chose to simply dismiss him. 22 However interesting this scapegoat argument is, I don t believe it was intentional, more serendipitous to the demos that there was a single person to blame. I think they truly relied on Pericles, and only realised how much they relied on him after his death This reliance on Pericles is proof of his significance as first man of the polis, yet, I cannot stress enough that Pericles is a unique case, they may not have missed a first man as such, it is possible they simply missed Pericles leadership. The death of Pericles is certainly a turning point in the prominence of the first man, no other champion of the polis truly emerges, though some jostle for the position 25. A contrast is made in Thucydides between Pericles and Cleon 26, 22 Plut. Them Plut. Per. 37. mentions how the Athenians continued to try other generals and politicians to carry on the war effort, but that none possessed a stature or an authority that would equal to the task of leadership 24 Arist. Ath. Pol Arist. Ath. Pol Mentions the various great mean that served as the headship of the polis, and how these positions shortly after were filled by Nicias and Cleon. 26 Mitchell (2008) highlights this point and states that Pericles did not flatter as Cleon was certainly accused of doing p.19.!6

7 Aristophanes also makes the point to criticise Cleon personally 27. Ober argues that Thucydides is a fragile construction based on speech contests, which themselves indicated the need for strong leadership based on the power of speech 28, I think this speech contests idea is a strong one, earlier examples 29 reinforce this point, showing that the winner of these contests has the potential to ascend to champion of Athens. Demagogues like Cleon were especially good at these speech contests 30. The problem was that these demagogues did not take the same path as Pericles, and did not follow his advice We must now briefly depart from fifth century Athens to discuss Theseus and his connections to being a king in democracy. Though a mythical king of Athens, he is nonetheless important in discussing how the idea of the good monarch and the bad tyrant emerged. Mitchell says that he was possibly used as an icon of the Cleisthenic reforms in the late sixth century 33. In many ways, Theseus could be described as the first democratic champion of Athens (of course this is problematic, as he did not exist literally. Yet, Theseus did exist as a symbol in Athens.) and Mitchell argues that Thucydides Pericles ruled, just as Euripides Theseus did 34, and even goes on to 27 Aristoph. Kn. leather-seller who roars like a torrent these phrases were aimed directly at Cleon, and intended as insults. However this is in a different sense to other writers, as there were personal issues between Aristophanes and Cleon. 28 Ober (2002) 29 Plut. Per Pericles words in the speech were enough to overthrow his political enemy Thucydides and almost immediately pushed him into the position of first man. 30 Though he is not the best, as pointed out by Mitchell (2008), he loses the debate to Diodotus, though he does win later debates in the assembly. 31 Thuc Pericles advice: to keep patient, look to maintenance of their navy and do not try to extend the empire. Cleon did the opposite of this by controlling Amphipolis and seizing Pylos, whilst these moves have been justified as actions to win the war, rather than to not lose Thucydides wants to stress the contrast between these two men. As well as this, Thucydides says they pursued policies motivated by private ambition and private gain which of course does not fit the bill for a champion of the demos Mitchell (2008) p.22. Mitchell (2008) p.11. Mitchell (2008) p.19.!7

8 point out that by bringing the Athenians into the city from the countryside, he is completing the work of Theseus. Theseus was the idyll of monarchs, one that every leader should aspire to be like, much in the way that Pericles did. Morrison states that Theseus is described as a young and noble shepherd for the want of which many cities have perished lacking a leader 35, sadly, Athens becomes one of these very cities and Morrison almost goes as far as to blame Alcibiades for this event, stating that the Athenian principate was never established because in it s moment of need, the Athenian aristocracy bred for that hour no Caesar, but an Alcibiades. Now turning back to fifth century Athens, we will look at the character of Alcibiades and how for Thucydides he represents potential, both to be the good monarch and bad tyrant. One of our earliest encounters with Alcibiades is the debate between him and Nicias 36, where Nicias emphasises his lack of age and suggests he is only interested for his own private gain. Mitchell points out that this then immediately leads us to associate him with the bad tyrant 37, and also believes that Thucydides agrees with Nicias judgement. And yet, ironically, Thucydides still makes the point to say that it was only Alcibiades who could save the Athenians an democracy in Mitchell makes the point that, if Pericles is the good monarch then Alcibiades is the bad monarch (or tyrant) who stands outside the law, looks after only himself, and destroys the city through his ambition 39. So Thucydides makes this point by comparing two characters, who in some ways are the same, and in some ways worlds apart. He does this to offer a subtle analysis of democracy, in which the individuals would be encouraged to be ambitious yet paradoxically, posed a practical and ideological threat to democratic stability 40, and Mitchell goes on to Morrison (1950) p.77. Thuc Mitchell (2008) p.23. Thuc ; Mitchell (2008) p.25. Mitchell (2008) p.24. Mitchell (2008) p.2.!8

9 say that this mirrors Euripides Theseus and Creon. This paradox between the need for champions, and the anxiety generated by them is how he eventually rejects both democracy and rule by the first man and adopts the idea of a constitution made of the few and the many 41. So, as we have seen the fifth century was an extremely tumultuous time for the Athenian political processes, and finally after the coup of 411, there seems to be a push towards a sole ruler as the failure of oligarchy is obvious 42. However, the Athenians are certainly still weary of rule by one man. But fourth century thought was certainly more accepting of one man rule 43. Unlike Thucydides, Aristotle s thoughts on the best type of constitution become a mixture of the one, the few and the many showing a reduced significance in fourth century thought in the first man of the polis. Rosivach believes that the events of 411 drive home to the Athenians that it is not the one who presents the biggest threat, but the few. 44 He also points out that the monarchical tyrant is no longer simply the antithesis of democracy, but instead the tyrant is the antithesis of the good king, especially in writers more accepting of one man rule like Xenophon and Aristotle. 45 This is also seen in Plato s Republic where the first man becomes the natural result of democracy. 46 In conclusion, the significance of the first man in the Athenian political process is evident, however, there are various factors which influence this, most importantly that he is the right first man to lead, as not all can thrive under the burden of leadership as Pericles did. Another important question is to whether or not the Athenian democracy would inevitably produce champions and I have shown that Mitchell (2008) p.2. Rosivach (1988). 43 Arist. Pol. 1288a. just one example of fourth century thought pointing out that if one individual differs from the other citizens in virtue so greatly that his virtue exceeds that of all others, then it is just for this family to e the royal family of this individual king Rosivach (1988) p.52. Rosivach (1988) p.56. Plat. Rep c-566a.; Rosivach (1988).!9

10 yes, the environment and insistence on ambition would lead individuals to crave the ascendance to first man of the polis, at very least, would led these individuals to compete with each other. One can never be sure of whether or not the Athenians explicitly needed the first man to rule them, but I believe having the one to lead the many was a significant factor in the successful expansion and prosperity of the Athenians.!10

11 Bibliography Modern sources Mitchell, L. (2008), Thucydides and the monarch in democracy, in, Polis 25.1, Morrison, J. S. & Gomme, A. W. (1950), Pericles Monarchos, Journal of Hellenic Studies 70, J, Ober. (2007). "I Besieged That Man, Democracy's Revolutionary Start". Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. University of California Press. J, Ober. (2002) Political Dissent in Democratic Athens, in P. Brun, Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule, Rosivach, V. J. (1988), The Tyrant in Athenian Democracy, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica Vol. 30, Ancient sources Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 20, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd Aristophanes, Knights. The Complete Greek Drama, vol. 2. Eugene O'Neill, Jr. New York. Random House Herodotus, The Histories, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press !11

12 Plato, Republic, trans. R. Waterfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Plutarch, Plutarch's Lives: with an English Translation by. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, trans. M. Hammond. Oxford University Press, New York !12