Athenian Democracy

This paper explores the principles underlying decisions to inscribe Athenian laws and decrees on stone, finding (against a recent paper by Michael Osborne) that many laws and decrees were not inscribed, including those of ephemeral significance. The basis of the paper is a comparative analysis of the inscribed record of 352/1-322/1 BC and the literary record of decrees proposed by Demosthenes, which extends across the same time period. It finds that three main criteria were relevant to decisions to inscribe: durability of intention; the intention to deliver a message; and religious content. The effect of the establishment of the state archive of papyrus copies of laws and decrees at the end of the fifth century is explored, and the existence of the archive identified tentatively as a factor, alongside others, explaining the very small number of extant inscribed laws from the fourth-century democracy (ca. 12) in comparison with the number of decrees (ca. 550-600).

The empire that the Athenians established in the years after 478 BC was an entirely new phenomenon in the history of Greece, and the basis of much of the brilliant development of Athenian culture in the fifth century. Its growth and collapse was the key event in the history of the period, after the defeat of the Persian invasion. Yet this important historical phenomenon remains baffling to study. New developments in various fields have made urgent a revision of existing approaches, which largely originated in the first half of the last century. Advances in archaeology have hugely extended the possibilities of writing an archaeology of the empire. The accepted chronology of many key inscriptions has been powerfully challenged, so that new narrative reconstructions become possible. Relevant new documents in languages such as Lycian have become available. Understanding of the Persian empire which was the parallel, and in a sense the model, with which the Athenian empire interacted has been transformed in the last quarter century. Broader developments in historiography (microhistory; history from below; and, post-colonial theory) invite us to pose new questions.The aim of this collection is not to offer a final word on any of the problems, but to give a sense of the possibility of a new generation of studies of the empire.

This article offers a new interpretation of Athenian tragedy, in which the poets competed for their audience's favour by constructing stories in which the protagonists suffer and die because they act within a world which lacks the institutional compensations of which fifth-century Athenians were so proud. Far from being a subversive or apolitical art form (the most popular current poles of scholarly interpretation), Athenian tragedy was heavily and positively involved in its contemporary social and political discourse.

The topic of this paper (delivered at a recent seminar in Chieti, 13 December 2018) is the vision of democratic politics implicit in Aristophanes' Wasps, with particular attention to Cleon. In particular, I argue that what Cleon represents has changed over the last few years, as has the significance of the late 5th-century Athenian democratic experiment, as a result of the rise of Donald Trump. The paper will eventually appear in the Atti of the conference, but I am posting it in advance of that due to the timeliness of the topic. Readers interested primarily in Cleon and Trump may wish to skip the central section of the paper, which is largely occupied with Aristophanic politics.

A Hellenistic inscription from Iasos prompts a reconsideration of the career of the Athenian politician Teisamenos the son of Mechanion. I first address some interpretive problems that have beset the study of this figure before turning to the new information from Iasos. I argue that we should understand Teisamenos as a “demagogue” as that term was coming to be known
already in antiquity, with negative connotations. Finally, the physical form of Teisamenos’s decree, known from an earlier Attic copy, invites us to rethink the relationship between democratic rhetoric and material culture, in this case decrees adorned with sculpted reliefs.

¿Cómo pensar el sorteo con eficacia? Mi propuesta es construir una teoría general del sorteo, abordándolo de forma comparativa, para averiguar cuáles son las constantes teóricas entre la gran diversidad empírica de sus usos particulares. En primer lugar, comparo el sorteo a los otros tres modos de selección: elección, nombramiento o cooptación y certificación. En segundo lugar, analizo los marcos deliberativos, es decir, “quién decide qué y cómo”. Tercero, distingo cuatro principios democráticos del sorteo: igualdad, imparcialidad, representatividad y legitimidad. Mi primera hipótesis es que el sorteo amplía considerablemente la igualdad, imparcialidad y representatividad. La segunda de mis hipótesis radica en que el sorteo es el único método de selección con una forma específica de humildad-legitimidad, mientras que los tres restantes modos de selección producen una superioridad-legitimidad que declara superior al representante por encima del representado a través del proceso de selección.

https://revistas.um.es/daimon/article/view/295921

Ancient Athens developed democracy to a higher level than any other state before modern times. It was the leading cultural innovator of the classical age. Classical Athens is rightly revered for these political and cultural achievements. Less well known is this state’s extraordinary record of military success. Athens was directly responsible for transforming Greek wars and for raising their scale tenfold. By the 450s it had become the eastern Mediterranean’s superpower. The first major reason for this success was this state’s demographic advantage. With twenty times more citizens than an average Greek state Athens could field armies and fleets that were much larger than all but a few others. The second major reason was the immense income that Athens got from its empire. This allowed it to employ thousands of non-elite citizens on campaigns and to perfect new corps and combat-modes. There is a strong case that democratic government was the third major reason. The military impact of Athenian democracy was twofold. The competition of elite performers before non-elite adjudicators resulted in a pro-war culture. This culture encouraged Athenians in ever-increasing numbers to join the armed forces and to vote for war. All this was offset by Athenian democracy’s rigorous debates about war. This debating reduced the risks of Athenian cultural militarism. It also made military reforms easier and developed the initiative of the state’s generals, hoplites and sailors. Political scientists have long viewed Athenian democracy as a source of fresh ideas. Presently they cannot satisfactorily explain the war-making of modern democracies. Consequently ancient history can provide political science with new lines of enquiry into how modern democracy impacts on international relations.

La proposition consiste à rechercher les catégories indiquées dans le cadre de conditions déterminées d’énonciation. Il s’agit de réfléchir autour de la notion d’agent en considérant deux figures singulières : le héros tragique et le citoyen démocratique, dont les caractères nous conduisent à la situation de l’Athènes du Ve siècle. En conséquence, le problème de la volonté et la constitution d’une notion d’agent responsable seront analysés à partir de l’intersection entre le domaine du discours tragique et le domaine de l’activité politique. Dans la conjonction de ces deux domaines, le problème crucial réside en la décision comme un processus subjectif. Notre idée centrale est que la figure du héros tragique évoque, avec ambiguïté, une antithèse politique mais aussi une métaphore du citoyen démocratique. Le héros tragique est une antithèse du citoyen démocratique parce que celui-ci prend uniquement des décisions comme partie d’une organisation collective, tandis que celui-là se présente en général sous une forme tyrannique. Mais le héros tragique est aussi métaphore du citoyen démocratique dans la mesure dans laquelle le processus subjectif réalisé par le héros opère comme recours de pensée des facteurs impliqués dans la prise de décision des citoyens réunis dans l’assemblée athénienne.

This is the first commentary in Italian on Lysias' speech 25. The Greek text reproduces that oxoniensis of Ch. Carey (2007), from which it departs in a few places. In the general introduction (pp. 9-48), some fundamental questions are first dealt with: the speech's title, legal context, dating, fictititious or authentic charachter. The second part initially focuses on the modern reception of this speech in order to enlighten the biases against Lysias in modern scholarship, which only a different comprehension of the nature of Athenian law system, given by anthropology, can remove. Eventually an original interpretation of this text is offered as a selected and ideologically oriented reconstruction of recent events of Athenian history. The commentary (pp. 66-94) discusses the linguistic and rhetorical aspects of this speech, such as, e. g., the use of argumentum e contrario and the reductio ad absurdum, it also addresses legal and historical issues, such as, e. g., the discussed identification of the accusators, the so-called 'sykophants', with little known personalities, mentioned in other sources.

Nel 1992 fa la sua comparsa sulla scena internazionale uno dei testi più influenti e discussi degli ultimi decenni, La fine della storia e l'ultimo uomo del politologo statunitense Francis Fukuyama. Tra le tesi principali spicca l'idea che dopo il crollo del muro di Berlino e il fallimento dei regimi totalitari sia la democrazia liberale il sistema all'interno del quale la libertà e le aspirazioni degli uomini trovano un perfetto equilibrio e che, pertanto, sia destinato a durare ed espandersi in tutto il mondo. A più di due decenni di distanza la situazione non è quella che, date le premesse del libro di Fukuyama, ci si potrebbe aspettare: la democrazia vive una profonda crisi, subisce attacchi da numerosi fronti e sta progressivamente perdendo la sua linfa vitale, cioè la partecipazione popolare. Filosofi, sociologi e politologi (tra cui Fukuyama stesso) da ogni parte del mondo hanno analizzato i sintomi di questa crisi e se molti hanno proposto delle cure, proponendo vie innovative per coinvolgere maggiormente i cittadini, altri hanno dichiarato il paziente irrecuperabile, coniando nuovi termini come 'postdemocrazia'. Il libro Contro le elezioni. Perché votare non è più democratico del giornalista e ricercatore belga David Van Reybrouck si inserisce in questo dibattito rompendone gli schemi con una tesi tanto chiara quanto radicale: "Ecco la prima causa della sindrome di stanchezza democratica: siamo diventati tutti dei fondamentalisti delle elezioni. Disprezziamo gli eletti, ma veneriamo le elezioni. Il fondamentalismo elettorale è la convinzione ferrea che una democrazia non sia concepibile senza elezioni, che le elezioni siano condizione necessaria, fondante, per parlare di una democrazia" (p. 38). Per l'autore, in altre parole, è all'interno dei modi di funzionamento del sistema democratico contemporaneo che si cela il punto debole alla base della crisi odierna. Attorno a questo assunto di base Van Reybrouck struttura la sua opera nella quale i sintomi, le cause e i rimedi alla crisi della democrazia vengono indagati da una prospettiva suggestiva e inedita, benché saldamente radicata nella storia del mondo occidentale. Ma sarà bene procedere con ordine, in modo da addentrarsi progressivamente nel testo e poter così comprendere la tesi proposta.

Esposizione di approfondimento per studenti liceali e di laurea triennale. Atene è l"altro polo nella gamma di possibili forme della polis greca. Il cammino di Atene è per certi versi opposto a quello di Sparta: se a Sparta l"ordine politico e sociale si va cristallizzando, Atene vive una continua evoluzione sociale e sperimenta soluzioni politiche sempre nuove; se Sparta è una polis creata da un gruppo ristretto di invasori che si impone sulla popolazione preesistente, gli Ateniesi si vantavano di essere autoctoni, di essere cioè la popolazione originaria del luogo; se la storia spartana è segnata dal contrasto fra il nucleo degli Spartiati residenti a Sparta e la popolazione asservita della campagna, al contrario quella di Atene è caratterizzata dall"eguaglianza di diritti fra abitanti della città e abitanti dei villaggi, e dalla fusione di centro urbano e campagna in una unica realtà politica; se Sparta risolve il conflitto politico solo imponendo l"uguaglianza totale dei cittadini, Atene invece saprà coniugare eguaglianza di diritti politici e diseguaglianze economiche. Infine, se Sparta finisce per incarnare l"ideale dell"oligarchia (il dominio dei pochi sui molti: da olìgos "poco" e arché, "comando"), ad Atene sarà si imporrà infine quelle che gli stessi Ateniesi definiranno "isonomia", cioè la "parità di diritti" di tutti di fronte alla legge (da isos, "eguale" e nomos "legge") e "democrazia", cioè il regime fondato sul potere del popolo (da demos, "popolo" e kratos, "potere).

This paper [in Dutch] questions whether it is justified to earmark classical Athens as "The Age of Pericles". It offers a short overview of what the sources have to offer on the life and deeds of the statesman and shows how the ancients may delude modern conceptions of his significance.

Pericles has had the rare distinction of giving his name to an entire period of history, embodying what has often been taken as the golden age of the ancient Greek world. “Periclean” Athens witnessed tumultuous political and military events, and achievements of the highest order in philosophy, drama, poetry, oratory, and architecture. Pericles of Athens is the first book in more than two decades to reassess the life and legacy of one of the greatest generals, orators, and statesmen of the classical world.

In this compelling critical biography, Vincent Azoulay provides an unforgettable portrait of Pericles and his turbulent era, shedding light on his powerful family, his patronage of the arts, and his unrivaled influence on Athenian politics and culture. He takes a fresh look at both the classical and modern reception of Pericles, recognizing his achievements as well as his failings while deftly avoiding the adulatory or hypercritical positions staked out by some scholars today. From Thucydides and Plutarch to Voltaire and Hegel, ancient and modern authors have questioned the great statesman’s relationship with democracy and Athenian society. Did Pericles hold supreme power over willing masses or was he just a gifted representative of popular aspirations? Was Periclean Athens a democracy in name only, as Thucydides suggests? This is the enigma that Azoulay investigates in this groundbreaking book.

Pericles of Athens offers a balanced look at the complex life and afterlife of the legendary “first citizen of Athens” who presided over the birth of democracy.

En el presente artículo (publicado el 17 de octubre de 2017 en la Revista Éufrates) se analizan las principales ideas reflejadas en el Discurso de Pericles, recogido por Tucídides en el Libro II de la Historia de la Guerra del Peloponeso. Su relevancia reside en ser el primer manifiesto de la teoría democrática.

The chapter discusses the radicality of the ‘unlimited questioning’ often associated with the Classical Athenian democratic experience, first, through the critique of the historiographical assumption of the Athenian polis as a ‘multitude of citizens’, arguing that the discursive practices related to the definition of polis should be analyzed in a historical, non-normative way, as part of the “unlimited questioning”; and second, through the discussion of the institutional gaps which permitted forms
of political participation of non-citizens, taking as a case-study the speech For Callias (Lys.5).

O capítulo discute a radicalidade da “interrogação ilimitada” frequentemente associado à experiência democrática ateniense clássica, em primeiro lugar, por meio da crítica do paradigma historiográfico da definição de polis como uma “multidão de cidadãos”, argumentando que as práticas discursivas relacionadas à definição
da polis devem ser analisadas de um modo histórico e não-normativo, como parte propriamente desta “interrogação ilimitada”; e em segundo lugar, por meio da discussão das brechas institucionais que permitiam formas de participação política aos não-cidadãos, tomando como estudo de caso o discurso Por Cálias (Lísias 5).

La desigual distribución de la riqueza bajo las condiciones actuales del capitalismo es, como bien se sabe, el eje sobre el que Piketty ha centrado su atención; asimismo, forma parte de sus reflexiones el posible rol del estado, a través de los sistemas de tributación, como modo de in-tervenir en la distribución y atenuar el impacto de la desigualdad, incluso de propender a cierta igualación. No son sus respuestas concretas sino los interrogantes y los aspectos conceptuales a veces subyacentes en las respuestas mismas, los que aquí abordamos, en la medida en que nos convocan a reflexionar sobre la especificidad de la Atenas del siglo IV a.C. a partir de cuestiones que no dejan de remitir a la situación presente. Como en muchos otros aspectos de la Grecia antigua, las estimaciones acerca de cuán igualitarias o desiguales fueron las póleis según la distribución de la riqueza han conducido a que, sobre la misma base documental, unos las hayan considerado sociedades relativamente igualitarias, mientras que otros las han percibido como sociedades desiguales. En este contexto, la distribución de la riqueza y la eva-luación del grado de igualdad o desigualdad en la Atenas del siglo IV han encontrado un lugar privilegiado entre los intereses de los especialistas, debido a la conjunción de los datos disponibles sobre población y riqueza y a cierto nivel de consenso dentro de la comunidad académica en cuanto a la posibilidad de usar estos números, más de allá de discusiones sobre la interpretación de ciertos datos. Mi objetivo, tras revisar los datos e interpretaciones plan-teadas, es tratar de ensamblar este conjunto para producir un modelo de distribución de la riqueza entre diferentes sectores de la comunidad de ciudadanos atenienses. A partir de esto, se extrae el coeficiente de Gini con la idea de ponderar, dentro de lo que cabe, el grado de desigualdad que implica determinada disposición de los datos, cuando se asumen ciertos puntos de partida. Mi propia percepción a partir de los diferentes argumentos esgrimidos, conforme a los datos ensamblados, me llevará a proponer un modelo de distribución de la riqueza, con el cual voy a configurar un posible cuadro de distribución de la tierra, el elemento más significativo de la riqueza. Finalmente, planteo diversas cuestiones abiertas al debate conforme a los ejes de este evento. Mi perspectiva es que, a pesar de las importantes disparidades, en términos relativos y comparativos no en términos absolutos, claro está, la sociedad ateniense fue relativamente igualitaria.

Solon in his poetry -mostly elegies- blames the Athenian demos and its leaders for the political and economic crisis of his days as well as the aristocrats. In my paper I underline the specific responsibilities of the former found in Solon's poetry together with the factors that eventually led to Peisistratus' tyranny from Solon's point of view. I also try to make clear that Solon's poems show for the very first time in history the political philosophy of a legislator who was of democratic mentality.