Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
A.W. Gomme wrote on the Athenian embassy to Sardes (Hdt. v 73): ‘Athens, whether by decision of the demos or of the governing class with the backing of public opinion or of a ruling clique did not, after the overthrow of the tyrants, give earth and water to the King.’
Since Gomme dated the embassy to Sardes to 506, he did not believe that the form of the Athenian government was still unsettled after the recent disturbances but was uncertain as to how Athenian politics worked at the beginning of the period with which he was concerned, 510 - 483. Where Gomme was doubtful, F.J. Frost is prepared to be positive:
‘I think most modern scholars would now agree that Athens in the first third of the fifth century continued to be manipulated by an aristocratic elite. Although the nobles were now constrained to operate within the confines of the Cleisthenic constitution, that instrument, like most successful and enduring institutions of its kind, was permissive and designed to be a reflection of tempora and mores rather than of doctrine. We would assume that most far-reaching questions of domestic and foreign policy were settled informally by discussion in the houses of the great, that the final decision was written up pro forma by the Boule and given perfunctory acclamation by the Ecclesia. Only when there was irreconcilable disagreement among the clans (or such aporia that it was felt best to spread responsibility for a decision) would the Demos be invited to take sides.’
1 Gomme, A.W.More Essays on Greek History and Literature (ed. Campbell, D.A. 1962), p. 20Google Scholar (‘Athenian Politics, 510–486 B.C.’, AJPh 66 [1945]).
2 Gomme, op. cit. p. 19.
3 Frost, F.J. ‘Themistocles’ Place in Athenian Polities’, Calif. St. Class. Ant. 1 (1968), 105–24, at 121–2;Google Scholar the same view, in effect, in Bicknell, P.J.Studies in Athenian Politics and Genealogy (1972), pp. 7–8, 35–6.Google Scholar That lack of evidence on this period of Athenian politics excludes confident reconstructions has been restated by Gruen, E.S. ‘Stesimbrotus on Miltiades and Themistocles’, Calif. St. Class. Ant. 3 (1970), 91–8, at 91–2,Google Scholar and Thomsen, R.The Origin of Ostracism: a Synthesis (1972), pp. 40, 116, 119–20, 129–31.Google Scholar That fancy is not yet exhausted in this field is shown by Ghinatti, F.I Gruppi Politici Ateniesi fino alle Guerre Persiane (1970), pp. 117–45,Google Scholar and Karavites, P. ‘Realities and Appearances, 490–480 B.C.’, Historia 26 (1977), 129–47.Google Scholar
4 Herodotos (vi 131; cf. ν 78) does after all say that Kleisthenes established a democracy. Ath. Pol. 29. 3, whatever its interest for the coup of 411, offers only the truism that the Kleisthenic democracy was not the same as that of the late fifth century: see Fuks, A.The Ancestral Constitution (1953), pp. 1–32.Google Scholar On the wider issues see Petre, Z. ‘Quelques problèmes concernant l’élaboration de la pensée démocratique athénienne entre 510 et 460 av. N.E.’, Studii Clasice 11 (1969), 39–55, esp. 41–6.Google Scholar
5 See Finley, M.I. ‘Athenian Demagogues’, Studies in Ancient Society (ed. Finley, M.I. 1974), pp. 1–25Google Scholar (from Past and Present 21 [1962]).
6 Antichthon 5 (1971), 1–34 (hereafter cited by page number alone). Badian (1 first footnote, 9 n. 21,13 n. 32) endorses Frost’s article cited in n. 3 above.
7 Other parallels with republican Rome are not helpful. Badian (5) dismisses the consideration that an annually changing executive is a drawback, saying that such magistracies sufficed for Rome to conquer the world, thus ignoring prorogatio and ‘extraordinary’ commands. For the problem in a Greek context, see Xen, Hell, 1 6. 4; ii 1. 5–7.Google Scholar Badian (30) sees a parallel between the Roman Senate’s position after the Second Punic War and the Areopagos’ after the Persian Wars, but on the historicity of Ath. Pol. 23. 1–2, 25. 1, see Day, J. and Chambers, M.Aristotle’s History of Athenian Democracy (1962), pp. 126–30.Google Scholar One may wonder how Badian fits into his scheme of Athenian politics the ‘isolationist demagogues’ he believes (6) were active in the 480s, or even who these persons were.
8 Sealey, R. ‘The Entry of Pericles into History’, Hermes 84 (1956), 234–47,Google Scholar was prompted by lack of evidence for clientela even in the later fifth century to guess that landlords in Athens influenced for political ends the tenants of farms and flats: in this case, the argument from silence is an effective rebuttal: Connor, W.R.New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (1972), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
9 See, for the problems of historical method involved, Davies, J.K. ‘La storia di Atene e il metodo di Münzer’, Rivista Storica Italiana 80 (1968), 209–21.Google Scholar
10 It is not explained how Aristeides ‘used his prestige’ to induce the Athenians to do this (13). Badian (8 n. 20, 11,13) is amongst those who take Thuc. i 93.3 to refer not to Themistokles’ archonship of 493/2, which he accepts (7–9,11), but to some kind of public-works commission (cf. Gomme, , More Essays, p. 21 n. 13,Google Scholar and Fornara, C.W. ‘Themistocles’ Archonship’, Historia 20 [1971], 534–40).Google Scholar If that was what Thucydides meant, he hit upon a cryptic way of saying it. That the passage refers to Themistokles’ archonship is established by Lewis, D.M. ‘Themistocles’ Archonship’, Historia 22 (1973), 757–8,Google Scholar and Dickie, W.W. ‘Thucydides i 93. 3’, ibid. 758–9.Google Scholar
11 Frost, , ‘Themistocles’ Place’, 114–15,Google Scholar endorsed by Badian (9 n. 21,15); cf. Gomme, , More Essays, p. 21Google Scholar n. 13, and Wade-Gery, H.T.Essays in Greek History (1958), pp. 146 n. 1, 171 n. 1.Google Scholar
12 Lenardon, R.J. ‘The Archonship of Themistocles’, Historia 5 (1956), 401–19.Google Scholar The evidence on Themistokles’ age comes from Plut. Them. 21. 5. It is highly unusual for Plutarch to say how long any of his Greek subjects lived: he does not do so for Alkibiades (contrast Nepos, Alc. 10. 6) and, apart from Themistokles, gives this information only for two kings (Ages. 40. 2; Demetr. 52.3) and a celebrated Persian makrobios (Artax. 30. 5; cf. Deinon, FGrH 690, F 20; Lucian, Makr. 15). Note the oddity of the Dexileos epitaph of 394 B.C.: ‘no other Attic epitaph records the date of the birth or death of the deceased’, Tod, M.N.Greek Historical Inscriptions, 2 (1948), p. 20,Google Scholar on no. 105. Podlecki, A.J.The Life of Themistocles (1975), pp. 196–7,Google Scholar suggests that Plutarch got his information from his friend and contemporary Themistokles, a descendant of the great man (Them. 32. 5; Mor. 626 e). It is hard to see how the descendant would know, and what Plutarch says on Themistokles’ age may derive from chronographers’ lucubrations.
13 Hdt. v 72. 2, 74. 2, 77. 1–2; vi 87–93; Ath. Pol. 20. 3; Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.Greek Historical Inscriptions (1969),Google Scholar no. 15. One name comes out of the Aiginetan war, Sophanes of Dekeleia (Hdt. vi 92. 3).
14 Fornara, C.W.The Athenian Board of Generals from 501 to 404 (1971), pp. 41–2,Google Scholar allows only Melanthios, Miltiades and Stesilaos, not accepting that Themistokles and Aristeides were strategoi at Marathon. On the case for accepting the latter, see Bicknell, P.J. ‘The Command Structure and Generals of the Marathon Campaign’, AC 39 (1970), 427–49, at 433–6.Google Scholar Cf. Badian, 7 n. 18,13 n. 32.
15 Thomsen, Origin of Ostracism, pp. 67–70, provides a full list of the names on ostraka, including the 9,000 or so from the still unpublished Kerameikos deposit.Google Scholar
16 That a minimum of 6,000 ostraka had to be cast against a ‘successful’ candidate, i.e. were an individual quota not a quorum needed for a valid ostracism, is confirmed by the text republished by Keaney, J.J. and Raubitschek, A.E. ‘A late Byzantine Account of Ostracism’, AJPh 93 (1972), 87–91,Google Scholar thus supporting Philochoros, FGrH 328, F 30, against Plut. Ar. 7. 5. Cf. Thomsen, Origin of Ostracism, p. 66,Google Scholar and the recent discussion of the late Byzantine text by Develin, R.Antichthon 11 (1977), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Kirchner, J.Prosopographia Attica (hereafter PA), 1 (1903), 2411,Google Scholar may have conflated more than one Archestratos under this entry.
18 Yet notice IG i2 911: an ostrakon inscribed Euchariden Thesmo(theten). In what follows the grammateus of the thesmothetai is left out of account (cf. Badian, 19. n. 49). Unlike the nine archons, this grammateus underwent dokimasia before the boule only, not before the boule and dikasterion (Ath. Pol. 53. 1, 55. 2), which shows that this post was added to the nine archonships at some later time which cannot be determined but was perhaps after 487/6.
19 See Ath. Pol. 56. 2 –58.2 for the aichons’ later functions, vestiges of their former powers, and, on the whole subject, Busolt, G. and Swoboda, H.Griechische Staatskunde 2 (1926), pp. 1019–21.Google Scholar
20 The combination of election and sortition that Badian proposes had already been suggested by W. Oncken. The reference which Badian complains (24 n. 62) was not given by Hammond, N.G.L.Studies in Greek History (1973), p. 233 n. 1,Google Scholar is to Oncken’s, Athens and Hellas 1 (1865), p. 293.Google Scholar Far from not having been made ‘for generations’ (Badian, 24 n. 62), the same suggestion was put forward after Oncken by Macan, R.W.Herodotus: the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books 2 (1895), p. 142,Google Scholar who did not refer to Oncken; by Myres, J.L.Herodotus, Father of History (1953), p. 208,Google Scholar who does not refer to Oncken or Macan; by Lang, M. ‘Allotment by Token’, Historia 8 (1959), 80–9, at 87–9,Google Scholar who does not refer to Oncken, Macan or Myres and whose view is rejected by Badian (25 and 63) and cited and accepted by Bicknell, P.J. ‘Herodotos, Kallimachos and the Bean’, Acta Cl. 14 (1971), 147–9.Google ScholarSealey, R.History of the Greek City States (1976), pp. 203–4, 228 n. 3,Google Scholar follows Badian. At Sealey’s pp. xviii and 229 read ‘Antichthon’ for ‘Autochthon’.
21 Badian (26 and n. 68) believes that Herodotos can be taken to mean that Kalli-machos took part in the wrangling by the strategoi before Miltiades sought him out. Yet Herodotos manifestly did not say this or even conceive the scene in this way. If Herodotos’ account has to be modified on this vital particular, this should make the rest of it all the more suspect.
22 Cf. Thuc. i 126. 8. Jordan, B. ‘Herodotus 5. 71. 2 and the Naukraroi of Athens’, Calif. St. Class. Ant. 3 (1970), 153–75,Google Scholar unconvincingly builds on an obvious corruption in one codex of Herodotos to try to make Herodotos’ account of this affair plausible.
23 Burn, A.R.Persia and the Greeks (1962, repr. 1970), p. 246;Google ScholarHignett, C.Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece (1963), pp. 57, 62.Google Scholar Against the defence in Hammond, Studies, pp. 229–31, 358–64,Google Scholar of Herodotos’ account, see Bicknell, ‘Command Structure’, 439–41.Google Scholar
24 No such contrast is noted by Hauvette-Besnault, A.Les Stratèges athéniens (1885), pp. 13, 15–16 (cf. Badian, 24);Google ScholarStein, H.Herodotus Vol. 2 (1868)2, ad locc;Google Scholar Macan, Vol. i, pp. 360, 365–6; How, W.W. and Wells, J.Commentary on Herodotus Vol. 2 (1912), p. 107;Google ScholarVan Groningen, B.A.Herodotus Vol. 2 (1950), pp. 188, 192;Google ScholarFornara, Athen. Board of Generals, pp. 9–10;Google ScholarHammond, Studies, p. 230;Google ScholarBicknell, ‘Herodotus, Kallimachos and the Bean’, 148.Google Scholar Badian (24 and n. 61) sees that there is a contrast but regards it as one between neutral statements of fact.
25 Ps.-Xen, Resp. Ath. 1. 3; Arist. Pol. ii 1273 a 18; iv 1294 b 7–9, 1300 a 10–b 5; v 1303 a 14–16; vi 1317 b 17–21; 1318 a 2. Cf. Rhet. i 1365 b; ii 1393 b 5–9; [Arist.] Rhet. Alex. 1424 a 13–15; Hdt. iii. 80.6, 81. 2–3;Plat.Rep. vii 577 a;Leg. iii 692 a; Xen. Mem. i 2. 9–11; [Dem.] lix 75; Isoc. vii 21–3; xii 153–4; Diod. Sic. xiii 34. 6.
26 On the alleged democratic animosity to superior worth, see Aristotle’s comments on ostracism: Pol. iii 1284 a 4–b 34; iv 1288 a 25; v 1302 b 15–20; 1308 b 11–19. On the use of the lot in general, Headlam, J.W.Election by Lot at Athens (ed. 2, by MacGregor, D.C. 1933).Google Scholar
27 See Ferguson, J. ‘The Introduction of the Secretary Cycle’, Klio 14 (1915), 393–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Cf. Rhodes, P.J.The Athenian Boule (1972), p. 21 n. 4;Google ScholarPodlecki, Life of Themistocles, p. 10 n. 11.Google Scholar
29 Fornara, Ath. Board of Generals, p. 42,Google Scholar and Podlecki, Life of Themistocles, p. 30,Google Scholar cannot bring themselves to accept that Themistokles was not strategos then, in spite of the mass of evidence against it. Aristotle (Pol. v 1307 b 6–19) mentions a four-year interval between tenures of the strategia once in force at Thourioi. The restrictions at Athens upon service as epistates or prohedros (Ath. Pol. 44. 1 and 3, 62. 3) are also comparable.
30 Plut. Cim. 14. 2 –15. l;Per. 10. 3–5.
31 Davies, J.K.Athenian Propertied Families (1971), pp. 212–13,Google Scholar followed by Podlecki, Life of Themistocles, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
