Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC)

by Terry Buckley

  Nevertheless there is agreement between the three main literary sources that the tyranny became harsher after the murder of Hipparchus – Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 19, Herodotus 5.62.2 and Thucydides:

  Hippias, now more fearful, killed many of the citizens and at the same time began to look outside Athens for a place where he might obtain safe refuge in the event of revolution.

  (Thucydides 6.59.2)

  The fullest account of the last years of the tyranny is given in Herodotus (5.62–65). Although in error with his claim that the Alcmaeonids had been in continuous exile throughout the tyranny of the Peisistratids (see above), he is right that the focus of resistance to the tyranny was the Alcmaeonids, who must have been exiled again at some time after Cleisthenes’ archonship in 525/4. Philochorus, a third-century Atthidographer, states that they were exiled by the sons and not by Peisistratus himself (FGrH 3B 328 F115), and the ruthlessness of Hippias’ rule and the fearful distrust of his real or imagined enemies after his brother’s assassination may well have been the political setting for their exile.

  The Alcmaeonids and other exiled families, possibly in 513, made an attempt to free Athens from tyranny by force; they seized a fort at Leipsydrion in north Attica, but were heavily defeated by Hippias. They therefore decided to gain the support of the Spartans, which they did with the help of the Delphic oracle. Having undertaken the contract to rebuild the temple at Delphi, which had been burnt down in 548/7, they earned the goodwill of the oracle by using marble on its front, rather than the limestone as agreed in the contract. As a result, every Spartan consultation of the oracle met with the command from the priestess to free Athens. The first attempt by the Spartans under Anchimolios in 512/1 ended in failure due to the superiority of the Thessalian cavalry which had been summoned by Hippias in accordance with their alliance. Finally the Spartans sent a larger force under King Cleomenes which this time defeated the Thessalian cavalry and besieged Hippias and his supporters inside the Acropolis. The siege was brought to an end by the capture of the Peisistratids’ sons, as they attempted to escape to safety; in exchange for the safe return of the children, Hippias agreed to leave Athens within five days. Thus ended the Peisistratid tyranny at Athens, but it would not be the last time that either Hippias or Cleomenes set foot on Attic soil.

  Bibliography

  Andrewes, A. The Greek Tyrants, ch. 9.

  ——CAH vol. 3.3, 2nd edn, ch. 44.

  Boersma, J. S. Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4, chs 2 and 3.

  Forrest, W. G. The Emergence of Greek Democracy, ch. 7.

  Hurwit, J. M. The Art and Culture of Early Greece, ch. 5.

  Lewis, D. M. CAH vol. 4, 2nd edn, ch. 4.

  Moore, J. M. Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy, pp. 227–35.

  Murray, O. Early Greece, 2nd edn, ch. 15.

  Parke, H. W. Festivals of the Athenians,pt1.

  Rhodes, P. J. Commentary on the Aristotelian ‘Athenaion Politeia’, pp. 189–240.

  Stanton, G. R. Athenian Politics c. 800–500 BC A Sourcebook, chs 3 and 4.

  7

  THE REFORMS OF CLEISTHENES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

  The sources

  There are no contemporary literary sources for the reforms of Cleisthenes. Herodotus was writing about sixty to seventy years after the affair, and his history only displays a passing interest in the constitutional reforms, concentrating more on the historical narrative of events (5.66, 5.69–73.1). Aristotle’s (or his pupil’s) Ath. Pol. was written in the third quarter of the fourth century (349–325), and covers not only the historical narrative (Ath. Pol. 20.1–3) but also Cleisthenes’ reforms in some detail (Ath. Pol. 21–2). The first part of Aristotle’s account, describing the political rivalry of Cleisthenes and Isagoras, the intervention of the Spartan King Cleomenes in Athens and the final success of Cleisthenes, is a summary of Herodotus, and is clearly based upon his work. However, the second part that deals with the constitutional reforms contains details that are present in no other existing source, and it seems probable that his information comes from one of the fourth-century Atthidographers who wrote histories (usually biased) of Athens. The reference to the law on ostracism (Ath. Pol. 22) is certainly based on Androtion, an Atthidographer, and the summary of other important events in the same chapter, listed in annalistic fashion under archon-years, points again to an Atthidographer as Aristotle’s source. It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that Androtion was the main source for the whole of Chapter 22 and probably for the reforms in Chapter 21.

  The political background to the reforms, 511/0–507/6

  It appears that there were no immediate political problems after the expulsion of Hippias the tyrant probably owing to the fact that the Peisistratids had virtually left Solon’s constitution intact, apart from ensuring their control over the archonship (Thucydides 6.54.6). However, within a few years there was a serious political clash between two aristocratic-led factions, one under the leadership of the Alcmaeonid Cleisthenes and the other under Isagoras. There is no way of knowing how many other powerful families were involved on either side or if there were other factions; but these two were certainly the dominant political forces at the time. Their struggle over the archonship – presumably the ex-archon Cleisthenes wished to prevent Isagoras’ election – and therefore membership of the Areopagus, the powerful aristocratic council, is reminiscent of the rivalry and in-fighting between the aristocratic leaders and their factions in the first half of the sixth century (599–550): clearly both Cleisthenes and Isagoras regarded the post-tyranny situation as an opportunity to return to the normal pre-tyranny style of politics. This view is reinforced by the fact that there is no mention of a conflict of political principle between the two leaders, and that both the main sources state or strongly imply that they were aided by their ‘hetairoi’ (aristocratic supporters). Therefore the initial clash was an old-fashioned power struggle between two ambitious faction leaders in which conflicting ideologies about the nature of the constitution played no part.

  The spark that ignited all the troubles was the election of Isagoras to the office of eponymous (chief) archon for 508/7 at the expense of the favoured candidate of Cleisthenes and his faction. At this point Cleisthenes adopted a new approach to strengthen his political power-base. The tyrants had already shown that the common people were a valuable political asset in any struggle for power, and Cleisthenes decided to follow their example:

  These men [i.e. Cleisthenes and Isagoras] were striving with their factions for power; and when Cleisthenes was getting the worst of it, he added the people to his faction (66.2). … For when he had added the people of Athens, whom he had previously ignored, to his faction, he changed the names of the tribes and increased their number. He created ten ‘phylarchs’ (tribal leaders) instead of four, and distributed the demes among the tribes. By winning over the people he became much stronger than the rival faction (69.2).

  (Herodotus 5.66.2, 69.2)

  Herodotus clearly held the view that political opportunism was the dominant motive behind Cleisthenes’ courting of the Athenian people, but he fails to explain how Cleisthenes won over the people and how he used them against Isagoras.

  The broad answer to the first question – concerning the means employed by Cleisthenes to win the support of the people – probably lies in Aristotle:

  Cleisthenes brought over the people to his side by handing over the control of the state to the common people (‘plethos’).

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 20.2)

  Cleisthenes was unlikely to have given a detailed explanation of his proposed tribal reforms which would have been very hard for the ordinary Athenian to understand due to their complexity. Therefore he probably stressed the main principle or the essence of his reforms: that in future all major political decisions would be made by the ordinary people in the Ecclesia (Assembly). He probably also said enough about the beneficial effects of the tribal reforms for those who had been recently d
isfranchised (see below), and thus won their backing for his proposals by raising their hopes of regaining their Athenian citizenship. The answer to the second question is more difficult; it is possible that he put the motion as a private citizen before the Ecclesia or, more probably, he enlisted the support of the ‘Boule of 400’ (Council of 400) whose function was to prepare motions for decision by the Ecclesia.

  These proposed reforms were put before the Ecclesia shortly before or just after the election of Alcmaeon to the archonship of 507/6 – obviously from his name a kinsman of the Alcmaeonid Cleisthenes. The success of Cleisthenes’ democratic legislation and the election of his political enemy’s protégé to the top post proved to be too much for Isagoras – he called in King Cleomenes of Sparta.

  Cleisthenes departed from Athens before Cleomenes arrived in Athens with a small force and expelled seven hundred families, picked out by Isagoras. However, Cleomenes’ next move proved to be unwise:

  He then tried to dissolve the Council (boule) and entrusted the offices of state to 300 of Isagoras’ faction. When the Council resisted him and was not willing to obey his orders, Cleomenes and Isagoras together with his political supporters seized the Acropolis. But the Athenians united and besieged them for two days; on the third day all those who were Spartans departed from the country under a truce.

  (Herodotus 5.72.1–2)

  Herodotus does not make it clear whether it was the aristocratic council, the Areopagus, or the Boule of 400 that Cleomenes attempted to dissolve. The Areopagus was a very prestigious institution owing to its venerable age and the prestige of its members, and its dissolution would have been a radical step. In addition, it probably contained many members who, like Isagoras, had acquiesced in the regime of the Peisistratids, and supported or belonged to Isagoras’ faction. The Boule of 400 seems a far more likely candidate for dissolution, especially if it put the motion for democratic reform to the Ecclesia (Assembly) on behalf of Cleisthenes. The surrender and departure of the Spartans and Isagoras from Athens led to the return of Cleisthenes and the 700 families from exile, to the archonship of Alcmaeon in 507/6 and to the implementation of the reform programme.

  The motives of Cleisthenes

  Scholarly opinion is divided about the motives that inspired Cleisthenes to pass his reforms, ranging from self-serving opportunism to high-minded altruism, with emphasis on one aspect of the reforms at the expense of others to support the respective viewpoint. However, a politician’s motives are rarely simple, even when they can be deduced with reasonable accuracy, and are more likely to reflect a combination of self-interest and public-spiritedness; and this appears to be the case in respect to Cleisthenes.

  Herodotus stated that Cleisthenes only added the previously ignored people to his faction when Isagoras was getting the better of him (5.69.2), and in this context a certain degree of opportunism can be suspected in his response to the problem of the new citizens. A revision of the citizen lists had taken place soon after the expulsion of Hippias and was aimed at those of impure Athenian descent who had previously looked to Peisistratus as their protector:

  Peisistratus was joined … by those who were afraid because they were not of pure descent. Proof of this comes from the fact that, after the expulsion of the tyrants, a revision of the lists of citizens (diapsephismos) was conducted on the grounds that many possessed citizenship who were not entitled to it.

  (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 13.5)

  Two things are not clear from this: the identity of these threatened citizens, and the means by which they were disfranchised. With regard to their identity, it is possible that some of these new citizens were foreign mercenaries whom the tyrants had used to seize power in 546 and had employed throughout their regime for security (Herodotus 1.64.1; Thucydides 6.55.3); these may have been allowed by the tyrants to settle in Attica. The other new citizens were probably the descendants of those skilled artisans whom Solon had attracted to Athens by the offer of citizenship (Plutarch, Solon 24.4).

  As for the means of disfranchisement, it is possible that the answer lies with the supposedly kinship-based ‘phratries’ or brotherhoods (see below for fuller discussion), membership of which was the only formal proof of citizenship before Cleisthenes’ reforms. However, under the tyranny, exclusion from the phratries would not have prevented the new citizens from exercising their rights of citizenship by, for example, attending the Ecclesia. But the fall of the tyranny would have left them exposed, and the revision of the citizen rolls by the phratries, confining citizenship to members of the phratries, would have deprived them of their citizenship. Cleisthenes’ decision to make membership of the ‘demes’ (see next section) the sole formal criterion for Athenian citizenship and his integration of the new citizens into these demes would have guaranteed their goodwill. Cleisthenes would naturally have expected their resultant gratitude to be translated into solid support for himself and his faction, especially at the time of the elections for the eponymous (chief) archon and other posts of importance.

  There is also reason to suspect opportunism in the tribal reforms (see next section 7. Branches of the Alcmaeonids, and presumably their political supporters, resided in three large demes in the city of Athens, and other branches of the family in their (probable) original home on the south-west coast of Attica. Suspicions of gerrymandering for political purposes are aroused when it appears not only that these three demes were allocated to three different City ‘trittyes’ (thirds), but also that these three City trittyes were placed in the same three tribes as three Coastal trittyes from the southwest coast of Attica – Tribe 1 (Erechtheis), Tribe 7 (Cecropis) and Tribe 10 (Antiochis). If this was the case, then it would have resulted in the Alcmaeonid supporters and dependants being the dominant political force in two of the three trittyes in three different tribes. Thus Alcmaeonid control could be exercised in the tribal elections for the post of ‘strategos’ (tribal general), and on the 50 tribal councillors of the new Boule of 500. In addition, if the majority of the new citizens who had their citizenship restored by Cleisthenes lived in and around the city, as is generally believed, then Alcmaeonid influence could also be exerted in most of the ten City trittyes. By contrast, his political opponents were at a distinct disadvantage because their supporters and dependants could only dominate in one out of three trittyes of the new tribes, since the other two trittyes were located in geographically separate and politically non-partisan areas of Attica. Furthermore, some trittyes were not geographically compact, but had demes that were geographically distant from the main locality of the trittys (see below): this was clearly designed by Cleisthenes to make it difficult for his political opponents to rally support in the trittys for the election of strategos and to influence the selection within the trittys of councillors for the Boule of 500.

  Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Cleisthenes needed to have embarked on such a complex reform if he merely desired to promote the interests of the Alcmaeonids. The history of the sixth century, including his own experience of recent events, had made Cleisthenes appreciate fully the nature of the problems that had so grievously troubled Athens: the intense rivalry of the aristocratic-led factions in their struggle for power which had caused political instability. Solon’s earlier attempt to resolve this problem had failed because he had not tackled the source of factionalism: the domination of the four Ionian or Attic tribes by leading aristocratic families in their own region. The origins of their domination lay in prehistory when kinship or alleged kinship was the common element that bound together the Athenians in nationality. Members of the four Ionian tribes traced their ancestry back to the four sons of Ion, the son of Apollo. Each tribe (‘phyle’) had a lower tier of organization, the local phratries or brotherhoods; these consisted of individual households or families (‘oikoi’, sing. ‘oikos’) and clans (‘gene’, sing. ‘genos’) in which a number of families traced their descent from a common legendary ancestor. It was in these local phratries, and therefore in the Ionian tribes, th
at the aristocratic clans were able to exert their political dominance due to their social status, economic strength and religious leadership, and thus maintain their hold over different regions of Attica.

  The rise in the first half of the sixth century of three such aristocratic-led factions, the ‘Men of the Plain’, the ‘Men of the Coast’ and the ‘Men beyond the Hills’ had led to political upheavals and ultimately to tyranny, with tough consequences for the aristocratic clans in opposition to the tyrant (see Chapters 5 and 6). The ending of tyranny had led to the renewal of feuding between the aristocratic-led factions and to political instability, culminating in the exile of the clan of the Alcmaeonids and 700 families who were their political adherents. The consequences of failure in this factional style of politics had become too high a price to pay for the losers; but, more importantly, Athens would never acquire the political unity and stability that were the essential pre-conditions for becoming a state of the first rank in the Greek world. Thus Cleisthenes’ reform of the demes and the tribes was designed to break the overriding regional power of these aristocratic clans and their factions by ending the formal political functions of the phratries and the old tribes; and, by means of the Boule of 500 and the Ecclesia (Assembly), to create a balanced constitution wherein the people’s political power was sufficient to act as an equal counter-weight to that of the aristocracy.