There has been much recent work on Cleisthenes. The justification for yet another article lies, I hope, in its different approach, from the land of Attica itself and the framework which Cleisthenes gave it. I hope also that this difference of approach will excuse what may seem a somewhat cavalier attitude to my immediate predecessors, whose arguments will seldom appear, although I have read them with attention and profit. The argument of this article proceeds largely from survivals, and leads to the paradox that we can understand Cleisthenes' work best in the places where he failed. These failures, however, give us clearer light not only on his aims, but on the woven texture of tradition and innovation which is formed by the life of classical Athens.

REGIONAL PARTIES IN SIXTH-CENTURY ATHENS

Let us begin by sketching our evidence for regional divisions in Athenian politics before Cleisthenes' reforms. The parties of the 560s have regional names, acquired, we are told, from the places where they farmed. We should emphasise that parties may include members from outside the original area of the nucleus. When Peisistratus waited at Marathon in 546, supporters came to him from Athens itself as well as from the country–villages. This should also act as a warning against any easy assignment of single economic or even constitutional motives to a party. The party may be a complex of driving–forces held together by its leader; such a complex is in fact sketched for Peisistratus' party by Aristotle. However, even with these qualifications in mind, it is legitimate to look for the nuclei.