Talk:Athenian democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.

Contents

[edit] Import into Athens

I have imported the information from here into Athens. -Smack 04:45, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] ohlos/ochlos

Should ohlos be ochlos? The h before the consonant doesn't seem especially possible in Greek, and ochlos does have the right meaning and gender.


It should be ochlos, omicron chi lambda omicron sigma, it means crowd or mob. - Colmfinito

[edit] "democracy" lowercased in title?

Why should democracy have a lower case "d"? Compare Roman Republic. This seems to be part of the same trend as Smack's move to duplicate content from here on the Athens page, making this just a page about how democracy worked in Athens rather than as THE page about the classical athenian state (though I admit there is also Athenian Empire, with which this page could be better integrated, eg: there are few dates here with which to relate one to the other). Modern and classsical Athens deserve their own pages (again, see Rome) since the period between them does not, and never will have, as much detail and interest. Maybe this page should become Classical Athens. Pm67nz 04:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spoke too soon - I just dicovered History of Athens. That wasn't there last time I looked. My opinions are on hold 'till I've read it!

[edit] POV sentence

Is this sentence POV? "It should not be understood that individualism was unwelcome in ancient democracy; on the contrary it was considered that individualism and personal liberty could only flourish in a fully egalitarian democracy." The passive voice construction is a red flag for me. I'd be happy to leave this here if it said something like, "Pericles, for example, believed that individualism and personal liberty could only flourish...." -- but that isn't what it says. --Christofurio 00:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree a statement like that, given that it's reasonable (and it may well be), needs to be sourced. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 03:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've waited a week for someone to come forward and source or defend this. No one has done either, so I'm going to go ahead and delete it. --Christofurio 21:54, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

"Athenian Democracy is not recognizable as 'modern democracy' is known today, since voting rights were limited strictly to male adult members of the society"

Where do you draw the line of whether something is a democracy or not? Today's democracies still have restrictions on who may vote, although not as exclusive as this. Of course, there is a difference between the restrictions on Athenian voters and ours, but when do you actually say "this one isn't a democracy?" -Frazzydee|✍ 14:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that it is irrelevant to the definition of democracy "who" is allowed to vote. The important factors in distinguishing one form of democracy from another is the amount of sovereign power that a voting citizenry is allowed to excercise. So, for example, our democracy is very different from the Athenian, not in terms of "who" votes, but rather in the amount of sovereign weight and the frequency with which our voting population exercises that vote, which is to say, much less frequently, and with much less direct power than in Athenian Democracy.

The factor democracies have in common is this - one citizen, one vote. As long as this is universal, allowing no power inequality on the basis of wealth or status among citizens, it can be considered democratic. -Mark P

I would look at Daniel Boorstien's "The Creators" to understand the concept of the Greek Polis in fostering an individuals talents to serve the Polis. The community fostered a development of the individuals talent, there was then an expectation that that individual used that talent to the benefit of the Polis. I think the concept is refered to as "Arete". Mike Ingalls

[edit] Return of Iasson reported

Iasson's sock puppets and their re-inflicting of rejected POV have been reported to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.

As I have already told you
  1. I am not Iasson
  2. Slaves were a tribe that arrived in europe a long long time after Athenian Democracy. Using the term slave is inaccurate and shows that you are ignorant of history.
  3. Please provides us your sources that are the proof that douloi had no rights at all, so you can call them slaves.
  4. Please stop beeing a vandal.

A confusion here. In English Slav is the name for the Slavic tribes: slave is derived from this because Slav captives were a common source of slaves from the early Byzantine period. But the word slave is used to refer to someone in a state of servitude with no reference to the ethnic group: most English speaks have no idea slave and Slavic are connected.

Douloi were bought and sold, which is a part of their, mostly, having very little control over lives: though they might have very different kinds of lives depending on whether they worked and died in the mines, were domestic help or lived by themselves running a workshop for their master (curiously, bankers were usually slaves). Greeks did not think much in terms of rights, and there is no easy translation for the term in ancient Greek: more a matter in Greek of talking about what is fair and just.

Doulos is the general Greek word for slave but in fact it wasn't really used much in daily Athenian life: they tended to use words meaning things like 'house person', 'boy/girl'.

(the etymology for "boy" in the old edition of the Shorter Oxford proposed that it came ultimately from bous, Gk for cow, by a sequence of derived words going cow > leather > leather ties > bound person > slave > person of lesser status > child; but they gave up on that one in the last edition) Flounderer 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevietheman and all the 213.* anons. You have had your three reverts for this 24hrs. Any more reversions will get you an automatic 24hr block. Please leave the article exactly as it is right now. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I of course will comply. However, reverting in this manner wasn't supposed to fall under the 3RR rule. This is a clear case of muckraking by this anon. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:38, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

"This excluded slaves, women and resident foreigners (metics) but nevertheless meant that a relatively large portion of the population took part in the government of Athens and of other radical democracies like it. Participation in the democratic process greatly exceeded that of any present day states, and functioned more directly than in any subsequent democracies." This sounds like that it is a good thing compared to today's democracy cus only men were allowed to go in methinks. I'm confused. The sentence sounds a bit NPOV."Women, children, slaves, foreigners, resident aliens—groups that together made up a majority of the city's population—had no voting rights at all" Its also contridicted.

I think what it means is that the % of eligable persons participating in politics exceeds that of present day states & that by the way that democracy functioned (all participating rather than just voting for the leaders every 4 years) it functioned more directly then modern democracies. I'm not sure I know what part you mean when you say it is contradicted, although the majority couldn't vote compared to all other states at the time a relatively large proportion of the population did take part in government. AllanHainey 07:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] needs a redo...

This entry needs expanding and restructuring. It reads like a random string of titbits, leaves a lot out and has some not true things. If anyone is interested in working on it, I recomend the book by Hansen in the Refs. Hansen wrote tens of articles with titles like 'What time did the assembly start in the morning' which all come together into his Democracy book: he has this great way of zeroing in on what can actually be known. One has to be careful of handbook accounts which often just replay a stale set of half-errors and vaguenesses. There has been a genial divide between Hansen's work on democracy and that of Josiah Ober, whose first major book on the topic is in the Refs: Hansen emphasises the shaping power of the formal structures and rules and procedures, while Ober focuses on what gets said, ideology, rhetoric, political culture, class etc.

Some things that might go in to an expanded antry:

  • of the formal democratic machinery there is nothing about the Council of 500 (boule), and very little about the office holders (magistrates), and the same goes really for the assembly. These could go into a section on state machinery, institutions or whatever it should be called.
  • Class, rich and poor ('liturgy' = tax services e.g. rich guy volunteers/gets conscripted to pay for tragic chorus/warship etc)
  • demography of citizenship...
  • Something on the relation between state power and the individual
  • low level of bureaucracy, absense of hierarchy
  • Something on oligarchy since this gives a sense within a Greek context of what Democracy was measured against. The impulse to say what is remarkable about Athenian democracy is an essential one, but it will be more meaningful if the reader can also get as sense about what democracy shared with alternative Greek systems.
  • A comparison of ancient and modern democracies
  • Anti-democratic sentiment/criticisms in Greek authors (ant-democratic views were the mainstream view in classical texts)
  • A sense of evolution over time.

I'm going to put up some new stuff in the section currently entitled Lottery.Flounderer 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lottery

I'm removing the paragraph below to replace it with a fuller treatment on officeholders. Note especially that the generals were not the only elected officials in democratic Athens.

Following the reforms of Pericles, all Athenian positions except the chief military officials, the ten Generals or strategoi, were selected by lottery and received payment so that any Athenian citizen could take part in office. The only elected office was that of strategos (chief military official), and this was a very difficult and dangerous position to achieve. Candidates required both wealth and popularity to stand a good chance of being elected. Also, in the case that he did not manage to fulfill his mission, the strategos often faced ostracism or (if he was lucky) sentencing on other charges.

The other para that was in the lottery section I'm making into a section on the council of 500 (a stopgap measure). Hope I'm not standing on anyone's toes... Flounderer 05:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re-ordering

I've done a tentative re-ordering. There probably needs to be some pattern of summary paragraphs. Flounderer 06:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restore?

While I appreciate your efforts to expand the article, I wonder if we should not restore the deleted (lost?) two paragraphs: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To section 'Athenian Courts':

Author Christian Meier in "Athens: A Portrait of the City in its Golden Age" describes how Athens had a complex legal system which basically involved what was known as the Dikasteria. This was the jury court of ancient Athens manned by large panels elected from the the annual pool of 6,000 citizens eligible for this position. It could consist from anywhere between 101 and 6,000 members, however it most commonly consisted of 501 members. They were representatives of the various groups of the citezenry i.e. the various tribes of the Athenian city-state. Decisions were made by voting without any discussions. The jury could only cast a 'yes' or 'no' vote as to the guilt and sentence of the defendant. Only the victims or their families of crimes could accuse and prosecute (applies to dikai suits only). The courts looked after cases as minor as theft and as grand as matters of the Delian League. Members of the jury were payed three obols a day.

To section 'Council of 500', formely 'Lottery':

Following the reforms of Pericles, all Athenian positions except the chief military officials, the ten Generals or strategoi, were selected by lottery and received payment so that any Athenian citizen could take part in office. The only elected office was that of strategos (chief military official), and this was a very difficult and dangerous position to achieve. Candidates required both wealth and popularity to stand a good chance of being elected. Also, in the case that he did not manage to fulfill his mission, the strategos often faced ostracism or (if he was lucky) sentencing on other charges.

I tried to make sure that I included everything from these paras in the rewritten parts. There may be one or two details that didn't make it across, but if so I think it would be better to add them elsewhere in the entry. My view would be that these paras don't need to go back in as they stand.
I struck through things I thought misleading or inaccurate.
I left out the ref to the Meier book because I think it's too general a statement to need a citation in the text.
One thing I've noticed that I didn't include is the tribal selection of the jurors. I would say that that is not worth asserting as a stand alone fact (and "drawn from" would be truer than "representative of" since the tribes don't exist as entities to be represented but as a means of keeping selection spread across the whole citizen body). There could probably be a paragraph in the courts section on the bizarrely complicated selection procedures for jury service (lottery machine, coloured flags, acorns with letters on them...) they had going in 4thC and tribes would be mentioned in that. Maybe however that should be alluded to briefly in this entry and linked to the freestanding article on the courts (which if I remember is still stubbish at the moment).
Maybe we could make a list here of Things Needing to Go Back In if anyone thinks there are editing casualties. Flounderer 02:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think that any details in the above 2 paras that are not in the text should go back. Nonetheless, the article looks fairly comprehensive to me. Do you think it would pass a FAC vote? We could use some pics though... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's ready yet. It still contains sections with untrue or misleading information (for instance about voting in the assembly which for most things was by show of hands and never by division, which for 5 or 6 thousand people sitting on the ground in 5C and benches in 4C, was hardly possible), and it's missing a lot of basic stuff : e.g. nowhere does it talk about what the assembly did . A section comparing 4th and 5th century practice is important because they were very different. The section after the intro bits needs redoing: a kind of lopsided view. Too early to think of FAC! Flounderer 06:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If you say so :) What about a Peer Review? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to wait a bit longer. Some thoughts:

  • The introductory para on the council of 500 is now longer than the little one under Major Organs: maybe it needs expanding (or should those longer ones be moved out onto other pages?).
  • Wondering if there's now still too much repetition of material.
  • under Citizenship there is some comparison with mod democ which goes further than the issue of exclusiveness: maybe that should be a separate section after Criticisms.

Flounderer 03:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] replacing first section

I've put in a new first section trying to make a not-too-long (if this is not wishful thinking) summary of the working of the system. This introduces a degree of duplication with material lower down in the article, but I think there expansion is needed e.g. the brief remarks there on the council of 500 with not much mention of its powers or how it was selected. I'm also going to bring the material relating to things like population and participation/exclusion together above the sections talking about the insitutions in detail.

The phrase on oligarchy below should go back in, but somewhere else, maybe a para on democ vs oligarchy. Powers to magistrates is an oligarchic feature, but a stronger feature is limiting general participation through property qualifications. Such a para could then go on to modern viewpoints as in the "Iron law of oligarchy" thing Flounderer 02:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Key features — Athenian democracy was based on selection of officials by lot, and decisions in other cases by majority rule. The assembly of all male citizens in Athens voted on decisions directly (compare direct democracy). Elected officials did not determine decisions — giving decision-making power to elected officials was considered by the ancients to take away the power of the people, 'effectively making the state an oligarchy'. Democracy had (and for some people still has) the meaning of equality in decisions and of elections in decisions, not the election of persons charged to decide (see representative democracy). Few checks on or limits to the power of the assembly existed, with the notable exception of the Graphe paranomon (also voted on by the assembly), which made it illegal to pass a law that was contrary to another.

Seems I have pushed the entry over the advised size. Flounderer 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we be thinking about offshoot pages? Some possibles:

  • the entries of ekklesia and boule could be expanded
  • comparison of Ancient and Modern democracy
  • class/the rich and Athenian democracy
  • criticisms of Ath democracy
  • evolution of democ/5thC vs $thC.

Flounderer 04:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ochlocracy

I removed this.

For them democracy was ochlocracy, the rule of the mob (ochlos).

Apparently the term comes from Polybius (6.4.6) centuries later, where he opposes good and bad democracy as demokratia vs ochlokratia. Classical texts do use ochlos as an insulting mobbish version of demos, but ochlocracy probably doesn't belong here unless there was something about Plato and Aristotle's typologies of good and bad versions of constituions (for which they have their own terms). 'll

Oh, just noticed ochlocracy is a useful link. I'll find a way to put it back. Flounderer 10:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Stuck this in "(They sometimes used instead the perjorative word ochlos, mob or rabble, to refer to democratic gatherings; centuries later the historian Polybius employed the term ochlocracy "mob rule" to describe radical democracy.)" then just settled on a brief bracket at the end of the para. Wasn't sure if the wafflier version was worth its space. Flounderer 10:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unique experiment

The article does not highlight enough the longevity of athenian democracy. It lasted nearly 200 years with only brief interuptions in 411 and 404/3. No truly representative modern democracy has yet lasted this long. (To be 'representative', it is reasonable to expect a majority of citizens to have a say, so Britain, for example, wasn't representative until votes for women in 1918.) It is representative democracy that is an experiment. 82.3.50.1 12:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying we shouldn't count Britain in 1800 as a democracy because it didn't allow women the vote, but we should nevertheless allow Athens to be considered a democracy despite the fact that it didn't allow women the vote? That seems a trifle inconsistent. —Simetrical (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allotment

I've come across this term in several books and papers on Greek Democracy (e.g. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes), in which the author liberally uses the term "allotment" alongside "allotted" etc.

I contacted the Oxford English Dictionary to see whether this was a correct use, and although it is not in many dictionaries it is in fact in their larger dictionaries and is an acceptable use of the word (in fact it is probably the origin!).

Although the term sortition can be used interchangely with allotment, there is unfortunately no verb "to sortit" and the terms "allot" and "allotted" are much preferable.

The phrase "selected by lot" can get overused when discussing Athenian democracy, and it fails to capture the idea that the lot was more than a device to select people, but according to Herodotus was a key part of the democratic principle.

In my own experience (making submissions for a citizen's jury to appoint the House of Lords) I've found that very few people understand the term "sortition", whereas "allotment", allotted, etc. is intuitive because it is obviously connected with "lottery".

I would recommend after explaining the term "allotted (selected by a process of random selection such as drawing lots) where possible remove "selected by lot", particularly where it reapeats and replace it by "allotted" etc. 9 Dec 2005

I noticed a few ommission on the section "selection by lot", I now use allotment so commonly that I cannot abide having to repeat "selected by lot", so I've taken the liberty of amending the first paragraph of this one section where I made some small additions ... I think allotment makes it more readable. 9 Dec 2005

It's always good to have another term up one's sleeve against the tedium of repetition: I would say mix rather than replace everywhere. But I wonder if the first paragraph is now a little repetitive itself. Does the phrase "corrupt purchase of votes" (bribery?) really go with buying popularity, something more in the line of attention-seeking self-promoting largess from the rich? (btw please sign by typing 4 ~'s) Flounderer 11:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Really the First?

Why is Athens constantly called the first democracy? Shouldn't it be the Roman Republic, founded in 510BC? NeoRicen

  • Was the early Republic was a democracy, rather than an oligarchy (like Boeotia in Hesiod's time)?
  • There are well-founded suspicions that the date of 510 was an invention, created precisely to make Rome "free" before Athens. Septentrionalis 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The republic was just that: a republic. In political science a representative republic choses representatives, who then speak for their respective congregations people. It's a two part process. Athens functioned as a democracy because of the organization of the tribes after the reforms of Cleisthenes. The citizens (male landowners over a certain age)divided into demes by the three regions of Athens: coast, inland, mountains. Each deme was in a trytte, one deme per trytte from each region. Citizens voted on most all legislation and decisions by trytte, but each vote counted. There were no representatives. There was a ruling council out of organazational necessity. Certainly any local community that met in gathering to make decisions is a democracy. Historians count Athens as a landmark because of the scale and structure of the society. TKE 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not first democracy

Sparta was the first democracy in recorded history, possibly predating Athenian democracy by more than 200 years. (Most historians, however, date it 50 to 100 years before Solon in Athens.)

I took it from http://www.elysiumgates.com/~helena/index.html


not really though, both the gerousia and the ephors were elected, in practice from only aristocratic families.

and you had to be over 60 to be in the gerousia, so neither tony blair nor george bush would be in power. --Colmfinito 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sparta was never a democracy!!! This lady is wrong in her classification of Sparta. I refer you to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic. Read the whole article. Sparta was never a democracy.
Again, where is synoecism in this article. I like how you "experts" miss this important fact on the creation of democracy in Athens. You don't know anything.WHEELER 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Prof. Kagan recognizes that Athens under Cleisthenes is a "limited democracy" because it was still "mixed" under Cleisthenes. Democracy was created by Ephialtes when he destroyed the Aeropagus. WHEELER 23:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, the strict definition for democracy qualifies any number of prehistoric tribes. Yes, it is a limited democracy; you make a valid point. Synoecism merits inclusion if you wish to write it. My point was the size and structure of the society was a landmark in the city-state and human civilization. I would like to discuss it with you, but the "I like how you "experts" miss this important fact on the creation of democracy in Athens. You don't know anything." comment is inappropriate. The judgement here involves three things: historical context, political science, and popular attitude. We may quibble over these, but encyclopedic value must take priority over us arguing over details that are above the head of the casual looker-upper, right? TKE 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with WHEELER, synoecism is a relevant link and should not be removed. TKE 03:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The synoecism of Attica is traditionally dated from Theseus; it has nothing to to do with Cleisthenes, and little with the Areopagus. Septentrionalis 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That read very nicely now, thanks. TKE 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Prove your thesis Pmanderson. Please quote and reference where you make that distinction. I would like to know where and who said this.WHEELER 14:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Synoecism is about the "Change in government". It is not about uniting the villages. What happens is that the village people destroy the nobility and aristocracy and assume leadership of the polis thus calling itself a "democracy". You don't seem to grasp this concept of the destruction of a "politiea" and the change into "democracy". In Sparta, the nobility was not destroyed, and the the "citizens" worked together with the Noblity. Read Psuedo-Xenophon where he writes how he was "disenfranchised". That is synoecism.WHEELER 14:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In a serious historical debate with people that display knowledge on the subject, you have no right to say that someone doesn't seem to grasp a concept. I happen to have a different interpretation then you. See WP:Civility on showing respect to others. TKE 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And by the way, I know you're familiar with the page as you aren't new or anything. To a historian, that sentence is strikingly offensive. TKE 05:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Where in Heaven's name did you find this incredible confusion? Surely it is plain to a Demoticist that συν + οικια is a union of households, not a revolution. Nor do I believe that pseudo-Xenophon was as early as Ephialtes. For references, to the first classical handbook to come to hand, see the other talkpage; for a primary source; Plutarch's Theseus (and I believe Ath. Pol.) Septentrionalis 18:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a serious problem with this discussion and with the whole article. Democracy is now used by many to mean "elected government". It is not at all clear from the article or from this discussion whether the concept meant is e.g. "the first elected government" or "the first democratic government". Are you discussing e.g. whether Sparta was democratic by the late 20th century definition of democracy or by a classical definition? I think the following quotes clearly demonstrate that the two are not only very different but even contradictory - classical democracy did not mean an elected system:

“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,” [Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b]

“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]

“In establishing all these offices, we must make the appointments partly by election and partly by lot, mingling democratic with non-democratic methods,” [Plato, Laws 6:759]

“And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot.” [Plato, Republic 8.557]

I've tried to trace the evolution of this concept (democracy=elections). As far as I can tell the generic use of democracy started in the 1930s (Woodrow Wilson) for countries with universal franchise (ie. primarily countries giving the demos power), for obvious reasons it can't be much earlier! The latest date for its evolution is sometime around the 1980s, when democracy quite clearly had changed from its 19th century left wing idea of "democratic socialism" meaning: "power for ordinary people", to a right wing concept embraced by Thatcher, Reagan, etc. which we might call: "free-market-democracy" where "if you are not elected you are not democratic" (my quote).
Paradoxically, the modern use is now the inverse of the Greek use as by the modern usage: Greek democracy is "undemocratic"
It must be very confusing for a reader subject to this late 20th century barrage of "democracy=elections" when the article doesn't start with a clear explanation of what the Greeks meant by "democracy". It should at least quote Aristotle (democracy=the lot), I couldn't see any mention that democracy and isonomia were used interchangeably by some writers like Herodotus:

“The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality, and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public.” (Herodotus quoting Otanes c492BC, The Histories 3:80.6)

--Mike 10:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleisthenian Reform

Just as a heads up, sometime in the next few weeks I'm planning on digging up an undergrad paper I wrote on the subject and creating an article on it. Don't plan on touching it much after that, I prefer others tweak and expand. It's on an old computer so it'll take motivation one day to hook it up and copy to a floppy and whatnot. Be on the lookout! TKE 06:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to it, it would be OR as is. Teke 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Council of 500

Why is that paragraph repeated further down the page?

Why is that paragraph repeated further down the page? Wooster (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Septentrionalis 21:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrates

, but from around 460 BC at any rate an individual is known whose parents had decided to name him 'Democrates', a name evidently manufactured as a gesture of democratic loyalty.

Source for this? The New Pauly lists two men of this name, the older an old man in 338. Septentrionalis 21:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: OCD cites SEG 34. 199; Aeschylus Supplices. 604

I think I got that line about Democrates from the Hansen book in the references. Will check when I get the chance. Flounderer 11:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radical democracy

Are people okay with the fact that the Radical Democracy article is about a Chilean political party, and doesn't even mention Athens? (I'd dablink here, but there's no clear section. There's nothing to dablink to at democracy either — I think we need a new article.) Njál 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right. An article about radical democracy in ancient Athens is needed. I hope I've the adequate time to start it.--Yannismarou 12:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram of the Constitution of Athens

Hi everyone,

I made a diagram representing the Constitution of Athens using the information available in the Athenaion Politeia attributed to Aristotle. I would like people to comment on it before I propose its inclusion in the article on Athenian democracy. This is the English translation I just made of the original French:

Thank you! -- Mathieugp 22:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment I can make is that in the 5th century BC the strategoi did not just exercize the military power, but they were the actual leaders of Athens. I think the distinction from the current generals should be somehow clarified. In this case, we donot speak about some ordianary generals who just execute orders of some governement; they often are the governement and they become policy-makers.--Yannismarou 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That's true for 5th century BC as far as I know. I am not certain what you mean by "current" generals. In anycase, I don't think I would know how to give a visual representation of the nature of the military jurisdiction on the diagram. We could however write something on the role of the military leaders in the text.
Regarding the period of time: At the end of the Athenaion Politeia, after the short history of political changes in Athens (Cylon, Draco, Solon, Peisistratus, Cleisthenes etc.) the author gives a description of the "current" institutions of the city-state. Since it is believed that the work is that of Aristotle himself, the "current" period should then be somewhere between 384 BC and March 7, 322 BC. The role of the military leaders was less autocratic then in the 5th century BC (as far as I can understand). Maybe we should make it clear in the diagram or in the article which period of time we are talking about with the diagram? -- Mathieugp 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The situation is actually less straightforward than this. The archons, by Aristotle's time, were virtually powerless; the Boule actually wielded the lgreater part of the executive power. It's legislative influence, meanwhile, was limited and expressed largely through its probouleumatic power. The power of the generals waxed and waned; by Aristotle's time, they were approaching a low ebb, but in the late 5th century they had held substantial executive powers. Committees of the Boule, and randomly selected committees of 10, had come to play a significant role both in executing legislation and in supervising the magistrates. The ecclesia excercised judicial power at its discretion, and could also establish special courts. The heliaia was accompanied by another court, the dikasteria... (In other words, this article will need a lot of work at some point.) For an excellent analysis of all this, I recommend Hignett's History of the Athenian Constitution, which I have been reading lately and have found very informative. --RobthTalk 17:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) It sounds like Yannismarou means 21-century generals; and if so, I agree. The difference between the fourth century (which is certainly the subject of the second half of the Ath. Pol.) and Pericles (or Cleon) is not, I think, institutional, but situational: In the fourth century there was rarely a major war, and no leader with Pericles' established majority. Septentrionalis 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There were actually some institutional changes regarding the generals between the late 5th and early 4th centuries; in the 5th, generals had the power to execute soldiers while on campaign; this had been lost by, I believe, the time of the Corinthian War. There may have been some other powers as well...I don't have my sources in front of me at the moment, so I'll have to check later for specifics and citations. It is true, however, that the power of the generals decreased as the prominence of non-military men in politics rose. Cleophon was the first major leader to not hold the generalship, and I don't know that Archinus held it either, so the end of the 5th century would appear to be the most active period of change. --RobthTalk 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly I'm behind on my reading; but I was taught that Pericles was a general because he was a political leader, not the other way around. Does Hignett disagree? How about a box for "orators" and a line saying The Assembly "chose to listen to" them; and a separate caption noting that 5th century orators were usually generals? (There must have been exceptions. Ephialtes?) Septentrionalis 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you're quite correct that Pericles was a general because of his political popularity. What I meant with my comment above was that, in the mid 5th century, most popular politicians would get themselves elected to the generalship (I don't know if Ephialtes held the office or not, actually); by the late 5th and the 4th century, this seems to have no longer been the case, and the formal powers of the office were curtailed. Thus, while it was a major victory for Pericles' opponents to deny him the generalship in 430, Cleophon could "manage the affairs of the state for many years" (or whatever the line is) without ever holding the office. --RobthTalk 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some suggestions about the diagram:
Boxes on outside labeled military power, judicial power, legislative power: these seem too compartmentalised to me, as for instance the assembly had judicial functions (last known trial before assembly was, I forget, maybe 356, but well into 4th century) and the courts had legislative functions through the graphe paranomon (from at least 416). And the nomothetai ("lawmakers" = the year's jury pool) are missing: they seemed to have largely supplanted the lawmaking (as distinct from decree-issuing) role of the assembly in the 4th cent.
For sure, the separation of powers was (and still is) not absolute and perfect. However, I am not sure about your examples. What do you call the legislative functions of the graphe paranomon? As far as I know regarding the nomothetai, their functions were to vote for or against modification to the existing code of law which as far as I am concerned has everything to do with judicial powers. It is true that today law review processes are mostly part of the legislative branch in most republics, however even today, modification to the constitution for example follows a process that is different than the regular legislative process. In anycase, as this diagram is based on the description of the constitution of athens attributed to Aristotle, the inclusion of the nomothete function is to be excluded as it appears nowhere in "his" text. (Correct me if I am wrong: I ran an search for "nomo" in the text and I did not see any mention of nomothete or nomothèthe as it would have been written in French.) -- Mathieugp 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the arrows run into the "Citizens of Athens" box. Maybe instead everything could be inside a dotted supercircle representing "Citizen Body" - which, as an abstraction, never in one place at one time, is on a different level from the concrete institutions the diagram now surrounds it with. The circle could have an outer penumbra for state-debtors and the disenfranchised who were completely excluded from political functions: numbers unknown but definitely a significant presense.
I agree with dotting the Citizens of Athens. I like the idea of specifying the status of the non-citizens the way you suggest. This will test my diagramming skills for good. :-) -- Mathieugp 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The tag "are picked at random from" is not really true for any of the three cases given: all three have limitations and filtering procedures and were not automatic processes. The boule may have been filled by some form of lottery from out of a locally pre-elected pool, and the jurors (this is better attested) were picked from a self-nominating pool of males over 30 in possession of full citizen rights. Magistrates too had to offer themselves for selection (archonships could involve having to spend fair sums of money). All three involve, in some sense, applicants.
It is true that the oversimplification of the "nomination" process makes the diagram "say" something not entirely true. I am aware of the age restrictions that existed for certain functions, I just couldn't think of a way to diagram it without making the diagram overly complex. Is also misleading the failure to describe the fact that since 1) functions were limited in time and in number of turns and 2) citizens had to first "apply" as you said, the result is that the lot was never carried on the whole of the citizen's body as the diagram suggests. I was hoping that the accompanying text would clarify all this, but fixing the diagram is much better if at all possible. Any suggestion on how to better represent the nomination process? -- Mathieugp 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
One crucial divide I think would be good to include is that between "office holders" and instantiations of the "People". The former includes not only the generals and the magistrates but also the members of the Council of 500, and the latter the courts as well as the assembly. The first group were subject to scrutiny (and so sometimes disqualification) before taking up their role, and upon leaving office to review (and perhaps punishment): in these capacities they were serving the people and so could be judged for their performance. In the assembly and the courts, on the other hand, citizen voters had no liability as they were regarded as being the people (though speakers in those places could under some circumstances be punished). How about dividing the diagram down the centre with the liable officeholders on one side and the immune citizen masses on the other. Notably there was no limit at all on how many times a person could attend the assembly or be a juror, but almost all offices had a lifetime one-go limit: minor exception boule members (twice a lifetime, by demographic necessity); major exception generals and, if I remember correctly, financial officials i.e. seriously expert elected roles.
I am not certain what advantage it would give to make that distinction visible in the diagram. I really think this is best left to the accompanying text this time. For sure some functions were considered more critical to the well-being of the body politic and were not available to just "anyone at random" something that would have been insane. :-) -- Mathieugp 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
On the generals: it is often suggested (if weasel words are ok on talkpage) that part of the reason for the 4th century divergence of the roles of speaker in assembly and of generals was increasing complexity of warfare (mercenaries, siegecraft) on one side and fo financial administration on the other. Flounderer 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I invite you all to check out the latest version of the diagram I have just uploaded on fr.wikipedia.org : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fr/1/11/Constitution-d%27ath%C3%A8nes-aristote.png
Let me know what you think. -- Mathieugp 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I looked at the diagram mentioned. I'm not happy with it, like so many articles on Athenian democracy it concentrates on the assembly to the exclusion of the magistrates (We call our system a democracy because it is managed by the many... ) "The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, the lot determines office, officers are held accountable, and debate is held in public". Any diagram of Athenian democracy should show the people allotted to office as the key focus. The jury courts (which created democracy and were their other main characteristic) ought to the next key on the diagram, and the assembly (which was quite common to many systems) ought to be the next. The people's court should be shown as superior to the assembly as it could over-rule the assembly and effectively was an upper chamber. The diagram ought to show which magistrates were elected (~100?) and which allotted (~1000) because it is a very common mistake to assume that Athenian democracy was mainly elected. There is also an argument to have the "demos" at the top of the diagram becuase the principle was that the people ruled over the democracy rather than the democracy over them! --Mike 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The diagram shows three arrows out of four going from the citizens's body to legislative, judicial and executive offices. The label on those three arrows read "are drawn by lot among the". I fail to see how, by reading the diagram, someone could possibly conclude that it neglects to show most offices were not elective. As for the focus being "on the assembly to the exclusion of the magistrates", again how did you reach this conclusion? For reasons I find obvious, I did not draw a box for every single one of the allotted magistratures. In doing so, I meant no disrespect to the people inspecting horses, public buildings or the ten athlothetae, only their jobs are not so political. It seems to me your post is not the result of a reflexion conducted after reading the diagram, but a slightly different rendition of what you have written above. I believe the diagram allows the reader to clearly see, through numbers, how allotted offices greatly outnumbered elective ones. It shows 33 elected offices, while the 6000 heliasts, 500 councellors and 9 archons are shown to be allotted. -- Mathieugp 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of the diagram:
-- Mathieugp 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Any objection to the inclusion of the diagram in the article? -- Mathieugp 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The one bit of information I would really like to see included is that committees of the Boule had a significant executive function and also supervised the magistrates. By the late 5th/early 4th century, it could be reasonably argued that the Boule was acting as the primary executive entity. --RobthTalk 05:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is important. However, I am not sure how I could illustrate this relationship in the current diagram. Maybe a long arrow running from the Boule down below the Judicial Administration block then hooked to the Civil administration block at the bottom (where the Thesmothetea block is)? I'll look for the verb(s) used by Aristotle to describe the "supervision" role of the Boule over the magistrates. I'll be right back! :-) -- Mathieugp 14:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(de-indent) One possibility, I suppose, would be to swap the locations of the ecclesia and the boule, and have the arrows from the ecclesia to the elected officials run around the top of the diagram. Alternatively, you could squeeze in "committees of the Boule" (since it was 10 man committees that performed most of the supervisory and executive functions) on the bottom left and run the arrows around the bottom. All very complicated, but very good job with the diagram, and thank you for doing this; it's one of the better Wikipedian-created diagrams I've ever seen. --RobthTalk 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I modified the diagram according to your suggestion. What do you think? Also, I welcome your input on this diagram of the Legislative process of the Atheninans. -- Mathieugp 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That looks excellent. The legislative processes diagram is also good; I would suggest a few small changes; first, the line about the citizens constituting the ecclesia is still in French. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that the office of epistate was selected not by ordinary sortition at the time of appointment, but by the drawing of lots at the beginning of a tribe's period of service as prytanes. 36 members would be assigned a day, and on that day they would serve as epistate, presiding at the Boule, and would also preside at the assembly if one was called. I'm trying to think of a clearer way to demonstrate this in the diagram; it may be that there isn't one. The French, though, should be fixed ;). --RobthTalk 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
And shouldn't the text in the box be "epistates (one prytanis)"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punishments

Nice article, but if I might just comment on one thing, the article often refers to the fact that people (in the assembly or courts, etc.) could be punished for various reasons. But the article doesn't seem to say what these punishments were or what they involved. Were they minor, like a fine or being excluded from the assembly, or were they serious, like public flogging or execution, or something of that nature? I think it needs to be made clear because the ambiguous term "punishment" is used throughout the article without reference to what it actually means. --Hibernian 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a little confused about the section "Criticism of the democracy"

I noticed an incomplete sentence in the section "Criticism of the democracy." I would correct it, but I'm not sure what the author intended to say. Any thoughts?

Here is the passage:

Socrates happened to be the citizen presiding over the assembly that day and refused to cooperate, though to little effect. Standing against the idea that it was outrageous for the people to be unable to do whatever they wanted. Later they repented the executions, but made up for it by executing those who had accused the generals before them.


Should it read as follows:"...and refused to cooperate, though to little effect, standing against the idea...?" That is to say, was it Socrates that was against the idea, or someone else whose name was omitted? Was it "the assembly" perhaps?

In the next sentence, who is "they" in "they repented the executions...?" Is it the assembly? The Athenians? Can anyone clarify this and come up with clearer wording for this passage? Thanks. Snehalbhai 07:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Socrates was the only who protested, citing Athenian laws which would invalidate the trials of the generals. That is schoolbook history in Greece and quite well known. "They" are the Athenian public in general. User:Dimadick

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/h/Talk%7EAthenian_democracy_ced6.html"