“Master of Everything” -

The Nature of Athenian Democracy.

In the Athenian month of Pyanepsion (Πυανεψιών - ie. early November), in the twenty-fifth year of the Peloponnesian War, the men of Athens were called together on the hill of pnyx to debate a motion prepared by the Council of Five Hundred. The motion called for an immediate vote to decide whether or not to execute six of the Generals for failing to rescue survivors at the naval battle of Arginusai in 406 BCE, despite an Athenian victory. The debate and the events leading to it are covered in some detail by Xenophon, whose ‘History of My Times’ (Hellenika) is the only surviving contemporary account of the end of the Peloponnesian War. Xenophon’s account not only completes the story begun by Thucydides, but is also invaluable as a case study of the Athenian democratic system in action.The ensuing debate is therefore worth studying for what it reveals about the nature of democracy at Athens.
 

The Notion of Democracy.
Defining the term is difficult. (see CLIO: Athens Democracy ) and criticisms of democracy are common enough from ancient times until relatively modern. Opponents of democracy said that the Athenians gave too much power to the common people ( CLIO: Plato's Critique of Democracy;). Modern critics take the opposite view, that the Athenians restricted democratic rights to a narrow segment of the population. (CLIO:The Nature of Athenian Democracy; ) None of these criticisms help to understand the Athenians of the Fifth Century BC, other than stating that their ideas were not the same as our own. It is surely more useful, once we understand they were not modern people, to seek to know more about what sort of people they actually were. The debate on the Generals in 406 BCE provides a valuable insight into the actual practice of democracy as understood by the ancient Athenians.

The Background
Before examining the circumstances of the trial, it will be useful to understand the events that led to it. For this we turn to Xenophon. In the previous year, 407,the Athenian fleet in the eastern Aegean, under command of the recently restored Alkibiades, had suffered a minor defeat at Notium, when fifteen triremes were lost. Alkibiades, who had left in command ‘a mere pilot and man of low birth, utterly lacking in judgement’ (Plutarch), was subsequently blamed for this defeat. The assembly in Athens immediately elected ten new generals and Alkibiades, once more unpopular, abandoned the Athenian cause and retired to his ‘castle in the Chersonese.’

After the election of the new generals. Xenophon tells us: “..Konon sailed from Andros with his own twenty ships and came to Samos to take over the command of the fleet in accordance with the decree passed by the Athenians. .. When he arrived at Samos he found that the fleet was in a poor state of morale. He fully manned seventy triremes instead of the more than one hundred that had been in service before, and then, taking the other generals with him, set sail with these. He made a number of landings at various points in enemy territory and carried off a great deal of plunder.” (Xenophen 1.5.16-19).

In the following year, 406 BC, the Athenian fleet became active again, once the winter storms had passed. Konon found himself facing a new Spartan admiral, Kalikratidas, sent to replace Lysander. Kalikratidas, with a force of some 170 triremes, mostly foreign allies, set out energetically to drive the Athenians from the sea. The two fleets eventually met near the Arginusai islands, south east from Lesvos, and joined battle. The result was a decisive defeat for the Spartans, who lost almost all their Spartan ships and sixty allied ships. Kalikratidas himself ‘as his ship was ramming another ship, fell overboard and was drowned.’ (Xen.1.6.28) The surviving Spartan ships ran for the safety of Chios, while the Athenian fleet fell back to the Arginusai, having lost, according to Xenophon, some twenty five ships, about five thousand men.
Xenophon then tells us: “After the battle the Athenian generals decided that Theramenes and Thrasybulos, who were ship-captains (trierarchoi), ...should sail with forty-seven ships to the aid of the disabled ships and the men on board them, and that the rest of the fleet should sail against the (Spartans) ... at Mytilini. However, the wind rose and a heavy storm came on so that they were unable to do as they had planned. They therefore set up a trophy and spent the night where they were.” (Xen. 1.6.33)

In spite of the victory, the generals who commanded the fleet were subsequently put on trial in the ekklesia, the assembly of citizens. Xenophen's account of the debate that took place is quite detailed and, given that it was probably written many years after (after 362 BCE) was probably based upon written records. He also relied no doubt upon his own recollections, since he was likely to have been present in Athens at the time.

The Debate in the Assembly
Xenophon tells us that “in Athens the people deposed all these generals except Konon” because they had failed to rescue the survivors. Konon was not deposed because he was besieged at Mytlilini and had taken no part in the affair The other generals were subsequently tried by the Assembly.

The first of the six disgraced generals to suffer was Erasinides, who was brought before the courts and charged with keeping public monies and with misconduct as a general. Erasinides was found guilty by the jury and was sent to prison. The remaining five, however, appeared before the Council of Five Hundred to give an account of their actions. Their explanations failed to convince the Council and, on a proposal by one Timocrates, the Council voted to imprison the generals and send them to the Assembly for trial.

The Assembly duly gathered on the pnyx where many speakers attacked the generals for the loss of twenty-five trireme crews, representing the death of some five thousand Athenian lives. No doubt a sense of outrage had gripped many in the assembly, since these five thousand oarsmen were sons, brothers and nephews. No one spoke more strongly against the generals than Theramenes, who was one of the trierarchoi tasked with the rescue of the disabled vessels. According to Xenophon, Theramenes sought to prevent the generals from shifting blame on to others, including presumably himself. Each of the generals spoke briefly in his own defence, but “they were not allowed to speak for the length of time permitted by law.” It is difficult to know what the fleet though about the matter, since most of those who experienced the battle were still abroad. However, according to Xenophon, the generals called as witnesses in their defence many of the steersmen (κυβερνῆται ) who had taken part the battle. Furthermore, ‘a number of citizens rose up and offered to give bail for them’. It was decided to put off any decision, since it had become too dark to count the hands in a vote. The Council was instructed to review the matter and bring another proposal to the Assembly at a later date.

In the time before the Assembly gathered together again, Theramenes and his supporters continued to pursue a verdict of guilty against the generals. They used the religious festival of the Apaturia, which celebrated kinship, to remind the Athenians of the loss of their kinsmen at Arginusai, and, according to Xenophen, they bribed Kallixenon, a member of the Council of Five Hundred, to ensure that the Council’s proposal to the Assembly should call for an immediate vote, without any further debate. When the Assembly duly convened, perhaps a month later, Kallixenon’s proposal was moved. It was supported by ‘a man who said he had been saved by clinging to a barrel’ and that drowning sailors had asked him ‘to report that the generals were doing nothing to rescue men who had fought most gallantly for their country’

The proposal, that the assembly should immediately vote without further debate, and that, if found guilty, the generals should be executed, was attacked by some as “against the law”. According to Xenophen, Euryptolemus, and a few others intervened with a summons against Kallixenon for “putting forward an unconstitutional proposal.” (1.7. 13). However, many of the citizens shouted their disapproval of this action, claiming that it was “intolerable if the people was not allowed to do what it wanted” and the sponsors of this summons were forced to withdraw their objection. Next, Xenophen tells us, some of the members of the prytaneia, the presiding committee of the Council (and therefore responsible for managing the meeting of the assembly) declared they would not put Kallixenon’s proposal since it was an illegal motion. The supporters of Kallixenon’s motion again threatened those who objected by claiming that the objectors would also be put on trial, and this terrified all the members of the prytaneia into withdrawing their objection, with the sole exception of Socrates, who said he would ‘do nothing at all that was contrary to the law’.

Kallixenon’s motion, which was in theory a motion put forward by the Council of Five Hundred, was duly debated. The only speech recorded by Xenophen is that of Euryptolemus, who had originally argued that the motion was illegal. He suggested that the generals should be tried separately and should be given a chance to speak in their own defence. Furthermore, he argued, they should be tried under one of two existing laws. He also pointed out that they had in fact attempted to rescue the survivors but were unable to do so because of the storm. He finished his address by moving a motion that each of the men should be given a separate trial in accordance with the law of Cannonus.

Euryptolemus was persuasive, it seems, for Xenophen tells us that the assembly chose in favour of his proposal above that of Kallixenon. However, an objection to this was lodged under oath by one Menecles, and the decision was reversed. Xenophen does not explain the substance of this objection, nor what arguments were used to sway the assembly, merely that “ another vote was taken, and this time the Council’s proposal was approved.”

Following this, an immediate vote was taken on whether the generals were guilty or not. “Then they voted on the eight generals who had taken part in the naval action and found them guilty. The six who were in Athens were put to death.” (Xen, ) It is interesting to note that these six included Perikles, the son of the famous Perikles, whose illustrious ancestry did not save him from execution.

Aristotle's description of the Athenian Democracy.

One of the most important accounts of the democratic system at Athens is a work known as “The Constitution of the Athenians”. The work is attributed to Aristotle, or one of his pupils, and was probably written in the late 4th century. The first half of this work traces the history of the development of democracy from the legendary times of Theseus to the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants, and concludes with the statement that “in the present time the people has made itself master of everything”. (41, 2). The second half then describes the institutions of government, the methods of election for public office and the duties of officials. This account of the ‘present constitution’, written almost one hundred years after the Debate on the Generals, may include developments subsequent to the Fifth century. Even so, Xenophen’s account of the assembly debate in 406 BCE is an important case study of Athenian democracy and allows us to compare his events with the later description of the democratic system.
 

Aristotle's description of the fourth century political system begins with an explanation of Athenian citizenship: “Citizenship belongs to boys of citizen parentage on both sides, and they are registered on the rolls of their demes at the age of eighteen” (Ath Pol 42.1). Once registered, supervisors are selected by lot and “these take the cadets in a body, and after first making a circuit of the temples then go to Peiraeus, and some of them garrison Munichia,1 others the Point.2 And the people also elects two athletic trainers and instructors for them, to teach them their drill as heavy-armed soldiers, and the use of the bow, the javelin and the sling.) (Ath Pol, 42).

The young men are kept together in training and military service for two full years: “They go on with this mode of life for the first year; in the following year an assembly is held in the theater, and the cadets give a display of drill before the people, and receive a shield and spear from the state; and they then serve on patrols in the country and are quartered at the guard-posts. [5] Their service on patrol goes on for two years; the uniform is a mantle; ... When the two years are up, they now are members of the general body of citizens.”

Aristotle then goes on to describe the method of selecting public officials. “All the officials concerned with the regular administration are appointed by lot, except a Treasurer of Military Funds, the Controllers of the Spectacle Fund, and the Superintendent of Wells; these officers are elected by show of hands... All military officers (strategoi) also are elected by show of hands. “ (Ath Pol 43.2)

.
The selection of public officials by lot is a fundamental feature of the Athenian democracy. and excavations in Athens have uncovered some of the allotment machines. (CLIO: Kleroterion ) According to Goldhill, the principle of appointing officials by lot would 'terrify any modern organisation' but 'direct democracy requires participation, and a direct relation between decision-making and action.' Selection by lot also ensures that an individual cannot achieve undue influence or power.

Aristotle devotes considerable space to the recruitment, composition and duties of the Boule, the 'Council of Five Hundred'. Like otherr public officials, the Council ‘is elected by lot, and has five hundred members, fifty from each tribe. Each tribe serves in turn as an inner council, or prytaneia. The inner council convenes meetings of the Council and the People (demos). The Council meets every day, except for public holidays, and the People meets four times in each month’. (443.2) The inner council (prytaneia) chooses by lot a President (prytanis), who serves for a day and a night. He is the keeper of the keys and is required to be present in the Round House (tholos) along with one third of the inner council. The inner council selects by lot nine chairmen, whose duties are to superintend the meetings of the Council or the People. They also conduct elections of Generals... in the Assembly, “in whatever manner seems good to the People.” (44.4).

The role of the Boule is neatly summarised in a speech by the 4th century orator Demosthenes, where he describes the day in 339 BC when news came in that Philip of Macedon had passed Thermopylai (and thus was only a few days' march from Athens):

“It was evening when a man came with news to the Presidents of the occupation of Elateia. They sprang up in the middle of their dinner, and some went and started clearing away the stall-holders out of the market-place... and others sent for the Generals and summoned the trumpeters, and the whole city was full of tumult. Next day, at dawn, the presidents convened the council in its chamber and you (the people listening to his speech) went to the place of assembly (the Pnyx), and before the Council had done its business and drafted the agenda, the whole people was already sitting up there (Demosthenes waves his hand from the law-courts where he is speaking towards the historic hillside of the Pnyx) And then the Council entered, and the Presidents reported the news they had received and brought forward the messenger, and he told his story; and then the herald asked: 'Who wishes to speak?' (quoted in Burn, pp 238, 239)

This anecdote demonstrates the role of the Council as a standing government to deal with day-to-day administration as well as the preparation of business for the People. Aristotle tells us that the duties of the Council also included the investigation of officials:

“Trials of officials are held in most cases by the Council, particularly those of the officials who handle funds; but the verdict of the Council is not sovereign, but subject to appeal to the jury-court. Private persons also have the right to lay an information of illegal procedure against any official they may wish; but in these cases also there is an appeal to the People if the Council passes a verdict of guilty.” (Ath Pol, 45.2)
 

The term used to denote the 'People' is demos. Aristotle makes it clear that the demos is the ultimate authority in the Athenian state, but actually says very little about this aspect of the political system. We know that the people assembled once a week, and conducted business according to an agenda set by the Council. The importance of this agenda is made clear in section 45: “The People cannot pass any measures that have not been prepared by the Council and published in writing in advance by the Presidents; for the proposer who carries such a measure is ipso facto liable to penalty by indictment for illegal procedure.” (Ath Pol, 45.4)

Acording to Aristotle, the four meetings of the People in any one month are devoted to specific business:

“They also put up written notice of the meetings of the Assembly: one sovereign meeting, at which the business is to vote the confirmation of the magistrates in office if they are thought to govern well, and to deal with matters of food supply and the defence of the country; and on this day informations have to be laid by those who wish, and the inventories of estates being confiscated read, and the lists of suits about inheritance and heiresses, so that all may have cognizance of any vacancy in an estate that occur.

Xenophen's account.
This information agrees with the events listed in Xenophen’s account. The Council is responsible for the initial examination of the generals’ conduct and then refers the matter to the People. Note that, unlike Erasinides, who was sent to trial by a jury court, the other generals are tried by the People’s Assembly itself. The Council has no power to issue verdicts of guilt or innocence. Indeed, the powers of the Council are limited – the membership of the Council is chosen at random and the President of the Council changes every day. This presumably explains why, according to Xenophen, Theramenes and his supporters ‘bribed Kallixenon to attack the generals at the meeting of the Council,’ (Hellenica, 1.7.6) They were not themselves members of the Council and could not influence its discussions.

We learn from Xenophen that speakers are given a length of time ‘permitted by law’ to defend themselves (although in this case the People decided to override this law) and that voting is done by show of hands. There was no vote at this first Assembly meeting, of course, since “it had become too dark to count the hands” and the Council was instructed to bring the matter back to the Assembly at a later date. This ‘later date’ was presumably a month later, since, according to Aristotle, the four meetings of the Assembly each month were devoted to particular types of business. (43.4). Of course, the Assembly may very well have been called together in a special session, so we cannot be sure how much time intervened between the first meeting and the second. According to Xenophen the religious festival of the Apaturia took place between the two meetings, so it is probable that the second meeting did not follow soon after the first.

the People cannot pass any measures that have not been prepared by the Council and published in writing in advance by the Presidents; for the proposer who carries such a measure is ipso facto liable to penalty by indictment for illegal procedure. (Ath Pol, 45.4)

role of the Council - examine officials, prepare business for the assembly.
Accountability of officials.

Assembly can act as a court of law.
voting by show of hands
Ability of any citizen to challenge legality of procedure (summons)
Also raises questions:
supreme sovereignty of the assembly. not bound by existing laws.
Existence of political parties?


According to Goldhill, the principle of appointing officials by lot would 'terrify any modern organisation' but 'direct democracy requires participation, and a direct relation between decision-making and action. This could scarcely be further from the structure of representative democracy at it takes place in Europe and America..(where) decisions are often taken without reference to those most affected. Because of party politics – something wholly absent from ancient democracy – elections are often fought on slates of policies.. It is extremely hard for a voter to use a vote to indicate support for one aspect of party policy but to reject another.” (2004, p 183)



http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman