649993 Artigo Finley

8/14/2019 649993 Artigo Finley

1/23


2/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES'WHEN THE NEWS OF THEIR DEFEAT IN SICILY IN 413 B.C. REACHED THEAthenians,hey eceivedt with isbelief. Then came herealizationof thefull cale of thedisaster,nd thepeople,writes hucydides,were ndignant ith he oratorswhohad joined n promotingheexpedition,s if they thepeople] had not themselves ecreedit[in assembly] .2 To this George Grote made the followingrejoinder:

From these latterwords, it would seem that Thucydides considered theAthenians, after having adopted the expedition by their votes, to havedebarred themselves fromthe rightof complainingof those speakerswhohad stood forward rominentlyo advise the step. I do not at all concur inhis opinion. The adviser of any importantmeasure always makes himselfmorally esponsiblefor ts justice,usefulness, nd practicability; nd he veryproperlyncursdisgrace,more or less accordingto the case, if t turnsout topresentresults otally ontrary o those which he had predicted.3These twoopposing uotations aise ll thefundamentalroblemsinherentn the Athenian emocracy,heproblems fpolicy-makingand leadership,of decisions and the responsibilityor them.Unfortunatelyhucydides ells us very ittle bouttheoratorswhosuccessfullyrgedon theAssemblyhe decision o mount hegreatinvasion f Sicily. In fact,he tellsus nothing oncrete bout themeeting,ther hanthat hepeopleweregivenmisinformationyadelegationrom he Sicilian ity fSegesta ndbytheir wnenvoysjustreturned rom icily, nd thatmostofthosewhovotedwere oignorantf the relevant acts hat heydidnot evenknow he size ofthe slandor ofitspopulation. Five days ater secondAssemblywas held to authorizehenecessaryrmament. The generalNiciastook heopportunityo seek reversal fthewholeprogramme.Hewasopposedbya number fspeakers, thenianndSicilian, eithernamedbythehistorian ordescribednanyway, ndbyAlcibiades,who is givena speechwhichthrowsmuch lighton Thucydideshimself nd on his judgment fAlcibiades, utscarcely nyon theissues,whether he immediate nes beingdebated or thebroaderones of democratic rocedure nd leadership. The resultwas acompletedefeat forNicias. Everyone,Thucydidesadmits,wasnow more ager hanbefore ogo ahead with heplan- theoldandtheyoung, hehoplite oldierswhowere drawn rom hewealthierhalfof thecitizenry)nd the common eoplealike. The fewwhoremainedopposed,he concludes,refrained romvoting est theyappearedunpatriotic.4

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.240 on Fri, 1 Nov 2013 21:15:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

4 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21The wisdomof the Sicilianexpeditions a verydifficult atter.

Thucydides imself admore han ne view t differentimesnhislife. However,he seems not to have changedhis mindabout theorators: heypromoted he expedition or thewrongreasonsandthey ained heday by playing n the gnorancend emotionsftheAssembly. Alcibiades,he says,pressedhardest f all, because hewishedto thwartNicias,becausehe was personallymbitious ndhopedtogainfame nd wealth rom isgeneralshipnthecampaign,andbecausehisextravagantnd icentiousastesweremore xpensivethanhe could reallyafford.Elsewhere,writingn moregeneralterms, hucydides aysthis:[Under Pericles] the governmentwas a democracy n name but in realityrule by thefirst itizen. His successorsweremoreequal to each other, ndeach seekingto become the firstman theyeven offered he conduct of affairsto the whims of the people. This, as was to be expected in a great staterulingan empire, produced manyblunders.5In short, fter he deathofPericlesAthens ell ntothehandsofdemagogues nd was ruined. Thucydidesdoes not use the worddemagogue n anyof thepassages have beendiscussing. It isan uncommon ordwithhim,6as it is in Greek iteratureenerally,and thatfactmaycomeas a surprise, or here s no morefamiliartheme n theAthenian icturedespite herarityf theword)thanthe demagogue nd his adjutant, hesycophant.The demagogueis a bad thing: o lead thepeople is to mislead above all, tomislead y failingo ead. The demagogues driven yself-interest,by the desire o advancehimselfn power, nd through ower, nwealth. To achievethis,he surrendersll principles,ll genuineleadership, nd he pandersto the people in everyway - inThucydides'words, evenofferingheconduct f ffairso thewhimsof thepeople . This pictures drawnnotonlydirectly,utalso inreverse. Here,for xample,s Thucydides'mageof theright indof eader:Because fhisprestige,ntelligence,ndknownncorruptibilityith espectto money, ericleswas able to leadthepeopleas a freemanshould. Heled them nstead fbeing edbythem. He did not haveto humourhemin the pursuitof power; on the contrary, is reputewas such that he couldcontradicthem ndprovokeheirnger.7Thiswasnoteveryone'sudgment. Aristotleutsthebreakdownearlier:t wasafter phialtes ook waythepower f theCounciloftheAreopagus hatthepassionfordemagogyet in. Pericles,hecontinues, irst cquired political nfluence y prosecuting imonformalfeasancen office; e energeticallyursued policy fnavalpower, whichgavethelowerclassestheaudacity o takeover theleadershipn politicsmore and more ; and he introduced ayfor



4/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES 5jury ervice,husbribinghepeoplewith heir wnmoney. Theseweredemagogic racticesndthey rought ericles opower,which,Aristotlegrees,he thenused well andproperly.8Butmy nterests neithern evaluating ericles s an individualnor in examining he lexicography f demagogy. The Greekpoliticalvocabularywas normally agueand imprecise, partfromformal itlesfor ndividual fficesr bodies and often noughnoteven then). The word demoswas itselfambiguous;among itsmeanings, owever,was one which ameto dominateiterary sage,namely the commonpeople , the lowerclasses ,and that senseprovided heovertonesn demagogues theybecame eadersofthe state hanks o thebacking f the common eople. All writersaccepted heneed forpolitical eaderships axiomatic; heir roblemwas to distinguishetweengood and bad types. Withrespect oAthens nd its democracy,he word demagogue understandablybecame hesimplestwayof dentifyinghebad type, nd itdoesnotmattern the eastwhether heword ppearsnanygiven ext rnot.I suppose it was Aristophanes ho established he model in hisportrayalof Cleon, yet he never directlyapplied the noundemagogue ohimoranyone lse;9 imilarly ithThucydides, hosurely houghthatCleophon,Hyperbolus,nd some, fnotall, ofthe orators esponsibleor he Siciliandisasterweredemagogues,utwho never ttached heword oanyof thesemen.It is importanto stress he word type ,for he ssueraisedbyGreekwriters s one of the essential ualities f the leader,not(except very secondarily) is techniques r technical ompetence,not even (except n a very generalizedway) his programmendpolicies. The crucial distinctions betweenthe man who givesleadershipwithnothing lse in mindbut thegoodofthestate, ndthe man whoseself-interest akeshis ownposition aramountndurgeshimtopander o thepeople. The formermaymake mistakeand adoptthewrong olicy n anygiven ituation;he attermay ttimesmake oundproposals, s whenAlcibiadesdissuaded he fleetat Samos fromeopardizinghe navalpositionby rushing ack toAthens in 411 B.C. to overthrow he oligarchswho had seized powerthere, n action owhichThucydides ave explicit pproval.10Butthese are not fundamental istinctions.Nor are other traitsattributedo individual emagogues: leon's habitofshouting henaddressingheAssembly,ersonal ishonestynmoneymatters,ndso on. Suchthingsmerely harpenhepicture. FromAristophanesto Aristotle,he attack n thedemagogueslwaysfallsback on theone central uestion: nwhose nterest oes the eader ead?



5/23

6 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21Behind this formulationf the question ay threepropositions.The firsts thatmen areunequal- both n theirmoralworth ndcapabilitynd in their ocial and economic tatus. The second sthat any community ends to divide into factions, he mostfundamentalf which re the richand well-born n one side,thepoor on the other, ach with ts own qualities,potentialities,ndinterests.The third proposition s that the well-orderedndwell-run tate is one whichover-rides action nd servesas aninstrumentalityorthegood life.Faction is the greatest vil and the most commondanger.Faction is a conventionalnglish ranslationftheGreekstasis,one of the mostremarkable ords obe foundnany anguage. Itsroot-sense s placing , setting or stature , station . Itsrange fpoliticalmeaningsan bestbe illustratedymerelytringingout the definitionso be found n the lexicon: party , partyformed or seditiouspurposes , faction , sedition , discord ,division , dissent , and, finally, well-attested eaningwhichthe lexicon incomprehensiblymits, namely, civil war orrevolution . Unlike demagogue , tasis s a very ommonwordin the iterature,nd its connotations regularly ejorative. Oddlyenough, t is also the mostneglected oncept n modern tudyofGreekhistory. It has not been observed ften noughor sharplyenough, believe, hattheremustbe deep significancen thefactthat wordwhichhas theoriginalense of station or position ,andwhich,nabstractogic, ouldhave nequallyneutralensewhenusedin a political ontext,npractice oesnothing fthekind,butimmediatelyakeson thenastiest vertones.A political osition,partisan osition that s theinescapable mplication is a badthing, eading o sedition, ivilwar, nd thedisruptionf thesocial

fabric. 1And this same tendency s repeatedthroughout helanguage. There is no eternalaw,after ll, why demagogue ,leader of the people ,mustbecome mis-leader f thepeople .Or whyhetairia, n old Greek wordwhichmeant, mongotherthings,club or society ,houldnfifth-centurythens avecomesimultaneouslyo mean conspiracy , seditious organization .Whatever he explanation,t lies not in philology ut in Greeksocietytself.No one who has readtheGreekpoliticalwriters an havefailed onoticethe unanimityf approach n thisrespect. Whatever hedisagreementsmong hem, hey ll insist hat he statemust tandoutside lass or other actionalnterests. Its aimsandobjectivesremoralones, timeless nd universal,nd theycan be achieved-



6/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES 7morecorrectly,pproached r approximated onlyby education,moral onductespecially n thepartof those n authority), orallycorrect egislation,nd the choice of the rightgovernors.Theexistence f classes and interestss an empirical act s, of course,not denied. What s denied s that hechoiceofpolitical oalscanlegitimatelye linkedwith theseclasses and interests,r that thegood of the state can be advanced exceptby ignoring if notsuppressing) rivatenterests.It wasPlato,ofcourse,whopursued his ineof tsreasoningo itsmostradical olutions. In theGorgias e had argued hatnoteventhe great Athenianpolitical figuresof the past - Miltiades,Themistocles, imonand Pericles were truestatesmen. Theyhadmerelyeenmore ccomplishedhan heiruccessorsngratifyingthedesires fthedemoswith hips ndwalls and dockyards.Theyhad failed to make the citizens bettermen, and to call themstatesmen was thereforeo confusethe pastrycookwith thedoctor.12Then, in theRepublic, latoproposed o concentratellpower n thehands of a small, elect, ppropriatelyducatedclass,who wereto be freed rom ll special nterestsythemostradicalmeasures, y theabolition nsofar s theywereconcerned fbothprivateproperty nd the family. Only under those conditionswouldtheybehave as perfectmoral gents, eadingthestateto itspropergoals without he possibility hat any self-interest ightintrude. Plato,to be sure,was themostuntypical fmen. Onedoes notsafely eneralizerom lato;notonlynottoall Greeks, utnoteventoanyother ingleGreek. Who elsesharedhispassionateconvictionhatqualifiedxperts philosophers couldmake andshouldtherefore e empowered o enforce) niversallyorrect ndauthoritativeecisions bout thegood life, he ifeofvirtue,whichwas thesole end ofthe state13 Yet on theonepointwithwhichamimmediatelyoncerned privatenterestsndthe state Platostood on commongroundwithmanyGreekwritersmuchas theydisagreedwith him on the answers). In the greatfinal cene ofAeschylus' umenideshe chorusexpresses he doctrine xplicitly:the welfare f thestate an restonlyonharmonyndfreedomromfaction. Thucydides implies this more than once.14 And itunderlies he theory f the mixed constitutions we find t inAristotle'solitics.

The most mpiricalfGreekphilosophers,ristotleollected astquantitiesfdataabout he ctualworkingsfGreek tates,ncludingfacts boutstasis. The Politics ncludes n elaborate axonomyfstasis, nd evenadvice on howstasis an be avoided under variety



7/23


8/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES 9A. H. M. Jones asrecentlyried oformulatehe democraticheoryfrom hefragmentaryvidence vailable n thesurvivingiterature,most of it fromthe fourth entury.18 Still morerecently, ricHavelock made a massiveattempt o discoverwhat he calls theliberaltemper n fifth-centurythenian olitics, hieflyrom hefragmentsfthepre-Socratic hilosophers.In reviewingisbook,Momigliano uggested hat the effort as foredoomed ecause itis not absolutely ertainthat a well-articulated emocraticdeaexistednthefifthentury .19 gofurther: do notbelieve hat narticulated emocraticheory ver existed n Athens. Therewerenotions,maxims, eneralities whichJoneshas assembled buttheydo not add up toa systematicheory. Andwhy ndeed houldthey It is a curiousfallacyto suppose that everysocial orgovernmental ystem in historymust necessarilyhave beenaccompanied y an elaborate heoreticalystem. Wherethatdoesoccur t s often hework f awyers,ndAthens ad no uristsnthepropersense. Or it maybe the work of philosophers,ut thesystematic hilosophers f thisperiodhad a set of concepts ndvalues incompatiblewithdemocracy.The committed emocratsmet the attackby ignoring t, by going about the business ofconductingheir olitical ffairsccordingo their wnnotions, utwithoutwritingreatises n whattheywereabout. None ofthis,however,s a reasonwhyweshouldnotattemptomake heanalysistheAthenians ailedto makefor hemselves.No accountofthe Athenian emocracyanhaveanyvalidityf toverlooksfourpoints,each obvious in itself,yet all fourtakentogether,venture osay, rerarely iven ufficienteightnmodernaccounts. The firsts that hiswas a direct emocracy,ndhowevermuch such a systemmay have in commonwithrepresentativedemocracy, he two differ n certainfundamental espects, ndparticularlyn the very ssueswith which am hereconcerned.The secondpoint s whatEhrenbergalls the narrowness fspaceof the Greekcity-state,n appreciation f which,he has rightlystressed,s crucial o an understandingf its political ife.20 Theimplications ere ummed p byAristotlena famous assage:A state composed of too many.., .will not be a true state,for the simplereason that t can hardlyhave a trueconstitution. Who can be the generalof a massso excessivelyarge And who canbe herald, xcept tentor21The thirdpoint s that heAssemblywas thecrown fthesystem,possessing heright ndthepower o makeall thepolicydecisions,in actual practicewith few limitations, hether f precedent rscope. (Strictlypeaking herewas appeal from heAssembly o



9/23

IO PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21thepopular ourtswith heirarge ay membership.Nevertheless,ignore hecourts nmuch, hough otall,of whatfollows, ecausebelieve, as the Athenians did themselves, hat, though theycomplicatedhepracticalmechanismfpolitics, hecourtswereanexpression, ot a reduction, f the absolutepowerof the peoplefunctioningirectly; nd because I believethat the operationalanalysis am tryingo makewould not be significantlyltered ndwould perhapsbe obscured f in this briefcompass I did notconcentraten theAssembly.) The Assembly, inally, as nothingother han n open-airmassmeetingn thehillcalledthePnyx, ndthefourth ointtherefores thatwe are dealingwithproblems fcrowdbehaviour; ts psychology,ts laws of behaviour, ould nothave been identicalwiththoseof the smallgroup,or even of thelargerkind of bodyofwhicha modernparliaments an example(though, t must be admitted,we can do littlemoretodaythanacknowledgeheir xistence).WhoweretheAssembly That is a questionwe cannot nswersatisfactorily. verymale citizen utomaticallyecameeligible oattendwhenhe reachedhiseighteenthirthday,nd he retained hatprivilegeohis death except or heverymallnumberwho ost heircivicrightsor ne reason ranother). In Pericles' ime henumbereligiblewasofthe order f45,000. Womenwere xcluded; o werethefairly umerous on-citizens ho werefreemen,nearly ll ofthemGreeks, ut outsidersn thepolitical phere; nd so werethefarmorenumerous laves. All figuresre a guess,but twouldnotbewildlynaccurateosuggesthat headult malecitizens omprisedabout onesixth f the totalpopulationtakingown ndcountrysidetogether).But thecritical uestion o be determineds whichfouror five r six thousand f the45,000 ctuallywent omeetings. It isreasonable o imagine hatundernormal onditions he attendancecamechieflyrom he urban esidents. Fewerpeasantswouldoftenhavetaken he ourneyn order oattend meetingf heAssembly.22Therefore ne largesectionof the eligiblepopulationwas, withrespectto directparticipation,xcluded. That is something oknow, ut tdoes notgetusfar nough. We canguessfor xample,with he aid of a fewhints n thesources, hat hecomposition asnormallyweighted n the side of the moreaged and the morewell-to-domen butthatsonly guess, ndthedegree fweightingis beyond venguessing.Still,one importantact an be fixed, amely,hateachmeetingof the Assemblywas unique in its composition.There was nomembershipn theAssemblys such,onlymembershipn a given



10/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES IIAssembly n a given day. Perhapsthe shiftswere notsignificantfrommeeting o meeting n quiet,peacefultimeswhen no vitalissueswerebeingdebated. Yet even then n importantlement fpredictability as lacking. When he enteredthe Assembly,nopolicy-makerould be quitesure hat changen thecompositionfthe audiencehadnotoccurred, hetherhroughccident rthroughmoreor less organizedmobilizationfsomeparticularector f thepopulation,which could tip the balance of the votes againstadecisionmade at a previousmeeting. And timeswereoften eitherpeaceful ornormal. In thefinal ecadeofthePeloponnesianWar,to take an extremeexample, the whole rural populationwascompelled o abandon hecountrysidendlive within hecitywalls.It is beyond easonable elief hatduring hisperiod herewas notalargerproportionf countryment meetingshanwas normal. Asimilar ituationrevailed orbriefereriods tother imes,when nenemyarmywas operating n Attica. We need not interpretAristophanesiterally henheopens heAcharnians ith soliloquybya farmer ho is sittingn thePnyxwaiting or heAssemblyobegin ndsaying ohimself ow hehates hecity ndeveryonen itand howhe ntends o shoutdown ny peakerwhoproposesnythingexcept peace. But Cleon could not have affordedhe luxuryofignoring his strange lement eated on the hillside beforehim.They might pset policy inewhichhe had beenable tocarrywhiletheAssemblywasfilled nlywith ity-dwellers.The one clearcut nstancecame in the year 411. Then theAssemblywasterrorizedntovoting hedemocracyut ofexistence,and it was surelyno accident hat hisoccurred t a timewhenthefleetwasfullymobilized ndstationed nthe slandof Samos. Thecitizenswho servednthenavyweredrawn rom hepoorandtheywere knownto be the staunchest upporters f the democraticsystemn its late fifth-centuryorm. Being n Samos,theycouldnot be in Athens,thus enablingthe oligarchs o win the daythrough majorityn theAssemblywhichwas notonly minorityof he ligiblemembers ut nuntypical inority. ursources onotpermit s to study hehistoryfAthenian olicy ystematicallyithsuchknowledget ourdisposal,butsurely he menwho edAthenswereacutely ware of thepossibilityfa change n thecompositionoftheAssembly,nd included tintheir actical alculations.

Each meeting,urthermore,as completen itself. Granted hatmuchpreparatoryorkwas donebytheCouncil boule),hatnformalcanvassingookplace,and that herewerecertain evices o controland checkfrivolous r irresponsible otions,t is neverthelessrue



11/23

12 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21that the normalprocedurewas fora proposalto be introduced,debated, nd either assed with rwithoutmendment)rrejectedin a single ontinuousitting. We mustreckon,herefore,otonlywithnarrownessfspacebutalso withnarrownessftime, ndwiththe pressures hatgenerated, specially n leaders and would-beleaders). I have lreadymentionedhe aseof heSicilian xpedition,whichwas decided n principle n one dayand thenplanned, o tospeak, ive ays aterwhen he cale ndcostwere iscussedndvoted.Anotherkindof case is thatof thewell-knownMytilenedebate.EarlynthePeloponnesianWarthecity fMytileneevoltedromheAthenianEmpire. The rebellionwas crushedand the AthenianAssembly ecided omake n example ftheMytileneansyputtingtheentiremalepopulation o death. Revulsion ffeelinget in atonce,the ssue was reopened t anothermeetingheverynextday,and the decision was reversed.23Cleon, at that time the mostimportantpolitical figure n Athens, advocated the policy offrightfulness.he secondAssembly as a personal efeat orhimhe hadparticipatedn thedebates n bothdays thoughhe seemsnot to have lost his status ventemporarilys a result as he wellmighthave). But how does one measure hepsychologicalffectonhimof ucha twenty-fourourreversal Howdoes oneestimatenotonly ts mpact, utalsohisawareness ll through iscareer s aleader that such a possibilitywas a constant actor n Athenianpolitics I cannot nswer uchquestions oncretely,ut I submitthat the weightcould have been no light one. Cleon surelyappreciated,s wecannot,what tpromised ormen ikehimselfhatin the secondyearof the PeloponnesianWar,whenmoralewastemporarilyhattered ytheplague,thepeopleturned n Pericles,fined imheavily,nddeposedhimfor brief eriodfrom heofficeofgeneral.24 fthis ouldhappen oPericles, howas mmuneIn theMytilene ase Thucydides' ccount uggests hat Cleon'swas a lost ausethe econdday, hathe tried opersuadeheAssemblyto abandon course factionwhich heyntended opursue romhemoment hesession pened, nd thathefailed. Butthe tory f themeetingn411,as Thucydides ells t, s a differentne. Peisanderbegan the day with the feeling againsthis proposal that theintroduction f an oligarchical ormof governmenthould beconsidered,nd he ended t with victory. The actual debatehadswung nough otes ogivehim majority.25Debate designed to win votes among an outdoor audiencenumberingeveral housandsmeans ratory,nthe trict enseoftheword. It was thereforeerfectly recise anguage o call political



12/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES 13leaders orators , s a synonymnd notmerely,s wemight o,as amarkoftheparticularkill of a particular olitical igure. UnderAthenianonditions, owever,muchmore s implied. The pictureoftheAssembly havebeentryingo draw uggests otonly ratory,but also a spontaneity f debate nd decisionwhichparliamentarydemocracyacks, at least in our day. 2 Everyone, peakers ndaudience like,knew hatbefore ight ell he ssue mustbe decided,that achmanpresentwould vote freely without ear fwhipsorotherpartycontrols) nd purposefully,nd thereforehat everyspeech,every rgumentmust eek to persuade heaudienceon thespot, hat t was all a serious erformance,s a whole nd in eachofitsparts.I place theword freely n invertedommas, orthe astthingwishto imply s theactivityf a free, isembodied ational aculty,that favourite llusion of so much political theorysince theEnlightenment.Membersof the Assemblywere freefrom thecontrolswhich bind the members f a parliament: heyheld nooffice,heywerenot elected,and thereforeheycould neither epunishednor rewarded or heir oting ecords. Buttheywerenotfreefrom hehumancondition, romhabitand tradition,rom heinfluences f family nd friends, f class and status,of personalexperiences, esentments,rejudices, alues,aspirations,nd fears,much ofit in thesubconscious. These they ookwith hemwhentheywentuponthePnyx, nd with hese heyistened o thedebatesand madeup theirminds,underconditionsery ifferentrom hevotingpractices f our day. There is a vast differenceetweenvoting n infrequentccasions or man or a party n theonehand,and on the otherhandvoting very ewdaysdirectlyn the issuesthemselves. In Aristotle's ime the Assemblymet at least fourtimesn eachthirty-sixay period. Whetherhiswas also the ruleinthefifthenturys notknown, ut therewereoccasions, s duringthe PeloponnesianWar, when meetings ook place even morefrequently.Then therewerethe two otherfactors have alreadymentioned,he smallnessof the Athenianworld, n whicheverymember f theAssembly newpersonallymany thers ittingn thePnyx, nd themass-meetingackgroundf thevoting a situationvirtuallynrelatedo the mpersonalctofmarking voting aper nphysicalsolation romvery ther oter; n actweperform,urther-more,with heknowledgehatmillions f othermenand women resimultaneouslyoingthe samethingn manyplaces,someof themhundredsof miles distant. When, for example,AlcibiadesandNicias rose ntheAssemblyn415,theone topropose heexpedition



13/23

14 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21against icily, he other o argue gainst t,each knew hat, houldthemotion e carried,ne or bothwouldbe asked o commandnthefield. Andin the audience hereweremanywho werebeing skedtovoteon whetherhey, ersonally, ere o march ut na fewdays,as officers,oldiers, rmembers f the fleet. Suchexamples an beduplicatedn a number fother, carcelyess vital areas: taxation,foodsupply,payfor uryduty, xtension f thefranchise,aws ofcitizenship,nd so on.To be sure,much of theactivityf theAssemblywas in a lowerkey, largely occupied with technical measures (such as cultregulations)r ceremonialcts suchas honoraryecrees or greatvariety f individuals). It would be a mistake o imagineAthensas a city n whichweek n and week out great ssuesdividing hepopulationwerebeingdebated nd decided. But on theother and,therewerevery ew ingleyears and certainlyo ten-year eriods)in which omegreat ssuedid not arise: the two Persian nvasions,the long series of measureswhich completedthe process ofdemocratization,heEmpire, hePeloponnesianWar which ccupiedtwenty-sevenears)and its two oligarchicnterludes,he endlessdiplomaticmanoeuvresnd wars of the fourthentury, iththeirattendant iscal rises, ll culminatingn the decades ofPhilipandAlexander. It didnotoften appen, s it did to Cleon nthedisputeoverMytilene,hat politicianwas facedwith repeat erformancethefollowing ay; but theAssembly id meetconstantly, ithoutlongperiods fholiday r recess. The week-by-weekonduct f awar,for xample, ad togobefore heAssembly eekbyweek;as ifWinston hurchill ere o havebeencompelledo take referendumbefore ach move n World War II, and thento face another oteafter he movewas made, in the Assembly r the law-courts,odetermineotmerelywhat henext tepshouldbe but also whetherhe was tobe dismissedndhisplansabandoned, r evenwhether ewas to be held criminallyulpable, ubjectto a fine or exile or,conceivably,he deathpenaltyither or heproposaltself r for hewaythe previousmovehad been carried ut. It was partof theAthenian overnmentalystemhat,n addition o the endless hall-enge in the Assembly, politicianwas faced, equally withoutrespite,withthethreat fpoliticallynspiredawsuits.If I insist on the psychological spect, t is not to ignoretheconsiderable oliticalexperience f manymen who votedin theAssembly gained n theCouncil, helaw-courts,hedemes, ndtheAssemblytself nor s itmerelyo counterwhat havecalledthedisembodied-rationalismonception. I want o stress omething



14/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES 15verypositive,namely, he intensedegreeof involvementwhichattendancet the AthenianAssembly ntailed. And this ntensitywas equally or even more trongly)hecase among heorators, oreach vote udged hem s well s the ssue to be decided n. If I hadtochooseone wordwhich estcharacterizedhe conditionfbeingpoliticaleader n Athens, hatwordwouldbe tension . In somemeasurethat s true of all politicianswho are subjectto a vote.The desperatenessfpolitics ndgovernmentsR. B. McCallum'stelling hrase,whichhe thendevelopedn thisway:Certainly note of cynicismnd wearinesswith the manoeuvresndposturingsfparty oliticianss natural nd toan extentroperodiscerningdonsand civil ervants, hocanreflectndependentlyndat leisure n thedoingsof theirharriedmastersn government. ut this seemsto arisefrom deliberateejection . ofthe ims nd dealsofpartytatesmenndtheir ollowersndthe ontinualesponsibilityor he ecurityndwell-beinginthe tate. For onething artyeaders re nsome ense postles,lthoughallmaynotbeGladstones;here repoliciesowhichhey edicate hemselvesandpolicieswhich larm ndterrifyhem.28I believe this to be a fairdescription f Athenian eaders, too,despite the absence of political parties, equally applicable toThemistocles s toAristides,o Pericles s to Cimon, o Cleon as toNicias;for,tshouldbeobvious, hiskind f udgmentsindependentof any judgment bout the merits r weaknesses f a particularprogrammerpolicy. Moreaccurately,shouldhave said that hisunderstateshe casefor heAthenians. Their eadershad norespite.Because their nfluence ad to be earnedand exerteddirectlyndimmediately this was a necessary onsequenceof a direct, sdistinct rom representative,emocracy theyhad to lead inperson,and theyhad also to bear, in person,the brunt of theopposition's ttacks. More than that,theywalked alone. Theyhad their ieutenants,fcourse, ndpoliticiansmade allianceswitheach other. But these werefundamentallyersonal inks, hiftingfrequently,seful n helping o carry hrough particularmeasureor evena group fmeasures, ut ackinghat uality f upport,hatbuttressingrcushioningffect, hich s provided ya bureaucracyandpolitical arty,n anotherwaybyan institutionalizedstablish-ment ikethe RomanSenate,or in stillanotherwayby large-scalepatronage s in the Roman clientage ystem. The criticalpointis that herewasno governmentnthemodern ense. Therewereposts ndoffices,utnonehadany tandingn theAssembly. A manwas a leadersolely s a function fhis personal, nd in theliteralsense, unofficialtatus withinthe Assembly tself. The test ofwhetherr notheheldthat tatuswassimplywhetherheAssemblydid or did not voteas hewished, ndthereforehetestwasrepeatedwith achproposal.



15/23

16 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21These weretheconditionswhichfaced ll leaders n Athens, otmerely those whom Thucydides and Plato dismissed asdemagogues ,not merely hosewhom some modernhistoriansmis-call radicaldemocrats , uteveryone,ristocratrcommoner,altruist r self-seeker,ble or incompetent,ho, n GeorgeGrote'sphrase, stoodforwardrominentlyo advise theAthenians. Nodoubt hemotiveswhichmovedmen ostand orward ariedgreatly.But thatdoesnotmattern this ontext,or ach one ofthemwithoutexception,hose o aspireto, and actively o work nd contest or,leadership,knowingust whatthat entailed, ncluding he risks.Withinnarrowimits, hey ll had to use thesametechniques,oo.Cleon's platformmannermayhave been inelegantnd boisterous,but howserious s Aristotle's emarkhathe was thefirstmantoshoutand rail ?29 Are we to imagine hatThucydides he sonofMelesias andkinsman f thehistorian)nd Niciaswhisperedwhenthey ddressed heAssemblyn opposition o Pericles nd Cleon,respectively? Thucydides,who broughthis upper-classbackersinto heAssemblynd seated hem ogetheroform claque?30This is obviously frivolouspproach,nothingmorethan theexpressionfclassprejudice nd snobbishness.As Aristotleoted,thedeathof Periclesmarked turning-pointn the socialhistoryfAthenianeadership. Until hen hey eem o havebeen drawn romthe old aristocraticandedfamilies,ncluding he menwho wereresponsiblefor carrying ut the reformswhich completedthedemocracy.After Pericles a new class of leaders emerged.31Despite the familiar rejudicial eferenceso Cleon the tanner rCleophonthe lyre-maker,hese were in fact not poor men,notcraftsmennd labourers urnedpolitician, ut menof means whodifferedrom heir redecessorsn their ncestrynd their utlook,

and whoprovoked esentmentndhostilityor heir resumptionnbreakinghe old monopolyf eadership. When such attitudes reunderdiscussion, ne can alwaysturnto Xenophonto find thelowest evel of explanationwhich s not thereforeecessarilyhewrong ne). Oneof hemostmportantf henew eaderswas a mancalledAnytus,who, ike Cleon beforehim,drewhiswealth romslavetannery. Anytus ad a longand distinguishedareer, ut hewas also the chief ctor n the prosecutionf Socrates. WhatisXenophon's explanation Simply that Socrates had publiclyberatedAnytus orbringing p his son to follown his trade nsteadofeducating im s a proper entleman,nd thatAnytus,nrevengefor hispersonalnsult,had Socrates ried nd executed.32None of this s to denythattherewereveryfundamentalssues



16/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES 17behind the thickfagadeof prejudice nd abuse. Throughout hefifthenturyherewerethe twin ssues ofdemocracyor oligarchy)and empire, roughto a climaxnthePeloponnesianWar. Defeatin thewarendedtheempire nd it soon also endedthe debate boutthe kindofgovernment thenswas to have. Oligarchyeasedtobe a serious ssuein practical olitics. It is only hepersistencefthephilosophers hichcreates n illusion bout t; they ontinuedto arguefifth-centuryssues in the fourth entury, ut politicallyin a vacuum. Downtothemiddle f the fourthentury,he actualpolicy uestionswereperhaps ess dramatic hanbefore,hough otnecessarilyess vital to the participants such matters s navyfinance, oreign elations oth with Persia and with other Greekstates,nd theever-presentroblem fcorn upply. Then came hefinal reat onflict,ver herising ower fMacedon. That debatewent n for ome hree ecades, nd tended nlyntheyear ollowingthedeath fAlexander heGreatwhen heMacedonian rmy utanend todemocracytself nAthens.All these were questionsabout which men could legitimatelydisagree,nd disagreewithpassion. On theissues,theargumentsof say)Platorequire arnest onsideration butonly nsofars headdressedhimself o the issues. The injection f the chargeofdemagogynto the polemicamounts o a resort o the very ameunacceptable ebatingricks orwhich he so-calleddemagoguesrecondemned. Suppose,forexample, hatThucydideswas rightnattributing lcibiades'advocacyof the Sicilianexpedition o hispersonal xtravagancend to variousdiscreditablerivatemotives.Whatrelevance asthat othe merits ftheproposaltself? Wouldthe Sicilian xpedition,s a warmeasure, ave been a better dea ifAlcibiadeshad been an angelicyouth To ask the question s todismisst,and all other ucharguments ith t. One mustdismissas summarilyheobjectionsooratory: ydefinition,o wish oleadAthens mpliesthe burden of trying o persuadeAthens, nd anessential artof that ffortonsistednpublic oratory.One candrawdistinctions,f course. I shouldconcede he abeldemagogue nits mostpejorativeense, or xample,fa campaignwerebuilt round romiseswhich cliqueoforators eitherntendedto honour orwere apableofhonouring.But, ignificantlynough,thisaccusation s rarelyevelled gainst heso-calleddemagogues,and theone definitenstancewe knowcomesfrom he other amp.The oligarchyf4II was sold to theAthenians n theappealthatthiswas now theonlywaytoobtainPersian upportnd thus o winthe otherwise ost war. Even on the most favourable iew, as



17/23

18 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21Thucydidesmakesquiteclear,Peisander nd someofhis associatesmayhave meant this originally, ut theyquickly bandoned allpretenceof trying o win the war while they concentrated npreservinghenewlywonoligarchynas narrow baseas possible.33That is what should call demagogy ,f theword s to merit tspejorative lavour. That is misleading hepeople in the literalsense.But what thenof the interest uestion,of the supposedclashbetween he nterestsfthe whole tate nd the nterestsf a sectionorfactionwithinhe state Is thatnot a valid distinction It is apity hatwehave no direct videnceandno indirectvidence fanyvalue)about heway he ongdebatewas conductedetween 08B.C.,whenCleisthenes stablished he democracyn its primitiveorm,and the lateryearsofPericles'dominance. Those were theyearswhenclass nterests ould most ikely ave beenexpounded penlyandbluntly. Actual peeches urvive nlyfrom heendofthe fifthcenturyn,andthey evealwhat nyone ouldhaveguessedwhohadnotbeen blindedbyPlato and others, amely,hattheappealwascustomarilynational ne,nota factionalne. There s little penpanderingo thepoor against herich, o the farmersgainst hetownortothetown gainst he farmers.Why ndeed hould herehave been Politicians egularlyaythatwhat hey readvocatingis in the best interests f the nation, nd, what is much moreimportant,heybelieve t. Often, oo,they harge heir pponentswith acrificinghe national nterest orspecial nterests,nd theybelievethat. I knowof no evidencewhichwarrantshe viewthatAthenian oliticianswere somehow eculiar n thisrespect;nordoI know nyreason o holdthat he rgumentsanessentiallyifferent(or better) ne because it is put forth otby a politician ut byAristophanesr Thucydides r Plato.At the same time a politician annot gnoreclass or sectionalinterestsrtheconflictsmong hem,whethern a constituencyodayor in the Assemblyn ancientAthens. The evidencefor Athenssuggests haton many ssues- theEmpire ndthePeloponnesianWar,for xample, rrelations ith hilip fMacedon thedivisionsoverpolicydidnotclosely ollow lassorsectionalines. Butotherquestions,uch as theopening fthearchonshipnd other fficesomenof the owerpropertyensuses r ofpayfor ury ervice r, nthe fourth entury,hefinancingf thefleet, r the theoric und,werebytheir ature lass ssues. Advocates nboth idesknew hisand knew how and when (and whennot) to make theirappealsaccordingly,t the same timethatthey ach argued, nd believed,



18/23


19/23

20 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21composition),bout he ackof bureaucracynd a party ystem,nd,as a result, he continuous tate of tension n which an Atheniandemagogueived and worked. But there s one consequencewhichneeds little xamination,or hese onditionsmakeup animportantpart ifnotthewhole)oftheexplanationfan apparentlyegativefeature f Athenian olitics,nd of Greekpolitics enerally. DavidHumeput tthisway:To exclude actionrom free overnment,svery ifficult,fnot ltogetherimpracticable; but such inveteraterage between the factions, and suchbloodymaxims refound,nmodernimes,mongst eligious artieslone.In ancienthistorywe may alwaysobserve,where one partyprevailed,whetherhenobles rpeople for can observe o differencen this espect),that heymmediatelyutchered.. and banished . . . No formfprocess,no law, no trial,no pardon . These peoplewereextremelyondofliberty, ut seem not to have understood t verywell.36The remarkablehing boutAthenss how near he cametobeingthe complete xception o this correct bservationf Hume's, tobeingfree,n otherwords, rom tasis n itsultimatemeaning. Thedemocracywas established n 508 B.C. following brief ivil war.Thereafter,n its history f nearly wo centuries,rmedterror,butchery ithoutrocess r aw,wasemployednonly wooccasions,in411 and404,both imes y oligarchicactions hich eizedcontrolof thestateforbrief eriods. And thesecondtime, n particular,the democratic action,when t regained ower,was generous ndlaw-abidingn itstreatmentftheoligarchs,o much so thattheywrung raise venfrom lato. Writingbout herestorationf403,he said that no one shouldbe surprisedhat ome mentook avagepersonalrevenge gainsttheirenemies n thisrevolution,ut ingeneral he returning artybehavedequitably .37This is not tosuggest hat he twocenturies ere otally ree rom ndividual ctsof injustice nd brutality.Hume - speaking f Greecegenerallyand not ofAthens n particular observed no differencen thisrespect etweenhefactions.Weseem o have less clearvision fAthens,at least, blockedby the distortingmirror f men likeThucydides,Xenophon nd Plato,whichmagnifiesheexceptionalincidents f extreme emocraticntolerance suchas thetrial ndexecution f thegeneralswho won the battle fArginusaend thetrial ndexecution fSocrates;whiletminimizesndoften bliteratesaltogetherhe even worsebehaviour n theother ide,for xample,thepolitical ssassinationfEphialtesn462or461and ofAndroclesin411,each nhis time he most nfluentialf thepopular eaders.If Athens argely scapedtheextreme orms fstasis o commonelsewhere,he couldnotescapeits essermanifestations. thenian



20/23


21/23

22 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 21political quality.. . notin defiance, ut in support fthe rule oflaw . The Athenian oor,henoted, id notonceraise hestandardGreek revolutionaryemand - redistribution f the land -throughouthe fifthndfourthenturies.39In those wo enturies thenswas,by llpragmaticests,much hegreatestGreek tate,with powerful eeling fcommunity,ithtoughnessand resiliencetempered,even grantedits imperialambitions, y a humanitynd sense of equityand responsibilityquite extraordinaryor tsday (and formany nother ayas well).LordActon,paradoxicallynough,was one of the fewhistoriansohavegrasped he historicignificancef theamnestyf403. Thehostileparties ,he wrote, were reconciled, nd proclaimed namnesty,hefirstn history .40Thefirstnhistory,espite ll thefamiliarweaknesses, espite he crowdpsychology,he slaves,thepersonal mbition fmany eaders, heimpatience fthemajoritywithopposition. Nor was thisthe onlyAthenian nnovation: hestructurend mechanism f the democracywere all their owninvention,s theygropedfor omething ithout recedent, avingnothingogo on buttheir wn notion ffreedom,heir ommunitysolidarity,heirwillingnesso inquire or at least to accept theconsequences of inquiry), and their widely shared politicalexperience.Much of thecredit or he Athenian chievement ustgo to thepolitical eadership f the state. That, it seems to me, is beyonddispute. It certainly ouldnothave beendisputed ytheaverageAthenian. Despiteall the tensions nduncertainties,he occasionalsnap judgmentand unreasonable hift n opinion,the peoplesupported ericlesformorethantwodecades, s they upportedverydifferentind of man, Demosthenes,under verydifferentconditions centuryater. These men,and othersikethem lesswellknown ow),were bletocarry hrough more r essconsistentand successfulprogramme ver long stretches f time. It isaltogether erverse o ignore hisfact, r to ignore he structurefpolitical ifeby whichAthensbecamewhat she was, while onefollows he lead of Aristophanesr Plato and looks only at thepersonalitiesfthepoliticians,r at thecrooks nd failuresmongthem, r at someethical orms fan idealexistence.In theend Athens ost her freedom nd independence, roughtdownbya superior xternal ower. She wentdownfighting,ithan understandingfwhatwas at stake learer han hatpossessedbymany critics in later ages. That final strugglewas led byDemosthenes, demagogue. We cannothave it bothways: we



22/23

ATHENIAN DEMAGOGUES 23cannotpraiseand admire he achievementftwocenturies,nd atthe same time dismiss hedemagogueswho werethearchitectsfthepolitical rameworknd the makers fpolicy, rtheAssemblynandthrough hich hey idtheirwork.JesusCollege, ambridge M. I. Finley

NOTES1 This is a revised text ofa paper read to theHellenic Society n London on25 March 1961, of which a shortened versionwas broadcast on the ThirdProgrammeof the B.B.C. and published in The Listener f 5 and 12 October1961. I am grateful o ProfessorsA. Andrewesand A. H. M. Jones,Messrs.P. A. Brunt and M. J. Cowlingfor dvice and criticism.2 Thuc., 8.1.1. 3A History fGreece, ewedn., London, 1862),v. p. 317n. 3.4Thuc., 6.1-25. 6Thuc., 2.65.9-11.6 Used only n 4.21.3, and demagogy in 8.65.2. 7Thuc., 2.65.8.8Const. of Athens, 7-28; cf. Politics,2.9.3 (I274a3-IO). A. W. Gomme,A HistoricalCommentaryn Thucydides,Oxford, 1956), ii. p. 193, points outthat Plutarch divided Perikles' political career sharply nto two halves, thefirstwhen he did use base demagogicarts to gain power,the second when hehad gained it and used it nobly .SAristophanes uses demagogy and demagogic once each in theKnights,ines 191 and 217, respectively. Otherwise n his surviving laysthere

is onlythe verb to be a demagogue , also used once (Frogs, 419).10Thuc., 8.86.11 The only systematic nalysis known to me, and that a briefone, is theinaugural ecture ofD. Loenen, Stasis, (Amsterdam,1953). He saw, contraryto the view most common among modernwriters, hat illegality s preciselynot the constant lement n stasis (p. 5). 12 Gorgias, 502E-519D.13 See R. Bambrough, Plato's Political Analogies , in Philosophy,Politicsand Society, d. Peter Laslett, (Oxford,1956), pp. 98-115.14 It is developed most fully n his long account (3.69-85) of the stasis inCorcyra in 427 B.C.15 Arist.,Pol., 3.4-5 (1278b-79b), 4.6-7 (1293b-94b); Polyb. 6.3-9.16Arist., Pol., 6.2.7-8 (I319a); cf. Xenophon,Hellenica 5.2.5-7.17 Pseudo-Xenophon, Const. of Athens, 3.1; see A. Fuks, The 'OldOligarch', Scripta Hierosolymitana, (1954), PP. 21-35.18AthenianDemocracy,Oxford, 1957), ch. iii.19E. A. Havelock, The Liberal Temper n GreekPolitics, London, 1957),reviewedbyA. Momiglianoin Riv. stor. tal., lxxii 1960), pp. 534-41.20 Aspects ftheAncientWorld, Oxford, 1946), pp. 40-45.21 Politics,7.4.7 (1326b3-7).22 That Aristotledrewvery mportant onclusionsfromthis state of affairshas alreadybeen indicated,at note 16.23 Thuc., 3.27-50. 24 Thuc., 2.65.1-4. 25Thuc., 8.53-54.26 See the valuable articleby O. Reverdin, Remarques sur la vie politiqued'Athenes au Ve siecle , MuseumHelveticum,i (1945), Pp. 201-12.27 P. Cloch6, Les hommespolitiques et la justice populaire dans l'Athenes

du IVe siecle , Historia, ix (1960), pp. 80-95, has recently rgued that thisthreat s exaggeratedby modern historians,at least for the fourthcentury.Useful as his assemblingof the evidence is, he lays too much stress on theargumentfromsilence,whereas the sources are farfrom full enough to bearsuch statisticalweight. 28 A review n The Listener 2 Feb. 1961), p. 233.



23/23

24 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 2129 Arist.,Const.,8.3.30 Plutarch, Pericles, 11.2. It was against such tactics that the restored

democracy n 41o requiredmembersof theCouncil to swear to taketheir eatsby lot: Philochorus328 F 140 (in Frag. gr.Hist., ed. F. Jacoby).31Arist., Const., 28.I. 32 Xen., Apology, 30-32. See generally GeorgesMeautis, L'aristocratieathdnienne,Paris, 1927). 33Thuc., 8.68-91.34 Eunomia ... the ideal ofthe past and even of Solon ... now meant thebest constitution, ased on inequality. It was now the ideal of oligarchy :Ehrenberg,Aspects,p. 92. 5Arist.,Const.,27.3-4.36 Of thePopulousnessofAncientNations , inEssays,World's Classics edn.,(London, 1903), pp. 405-406. Cf. Jacob Burckhardt,GriechischeKulturge-schichte,reprintDarmstadt,1956), i. pp. 8o-81.37 Epistles,VII 325B; cf.Xen., Hell., 2.4-43; Arist.,Const.,40.38The fourth-centuryegislative procedure by means of nomothetai ouldproperlybe added to this ist; see A. R. W. Harrison, Law-Making at AthensattheEnd ofthe FifthCenturyB.C. ,Jour. Hell. Studies, xxv 1955), pp. 26-35.31 G. Vlastos, Isonomia , Amer.Jour.Philology, xxiv (1953), PP. 337-66.Cf. Jones,Democracy,p. 52: In general... democratstended like Aristotleto regard he aws as a code laid downoncefor ll bya wiselegislator . . which,immutable in principle, might occasionally require to be clarified orsupplemented . The rule oflaw is a complicatedsubjecton its own,but itis notthesubjectof thispaper. Nor is theevaluationof ndividualdemagogues,e.g. Cleon, on whom see mostrecentlyA. G. Woodhead, Thucydides' Portraitof Cleon , Mnemosyne, th ser., xiii (1960), pp. 289-317; A. Andrewes, TheMytileneDebate , to appear in a forthcomingssue of The Phoenix.40 The HistoryofFreedom in Antiquity , n Essays on Freedom nd Power,ed. G. Himmelfarb,London, 1956), p. 64. The paradox can be extended: in

reviewingGrote, John Stuart Mill wrote about the years leading up to theoligarchiccoups of 411 and 404: The AthenianMany, of whose democraticirritabilitynd suspicionwe hear so much,are rather o be accused of too easyand good-natureda confidence,when we reflect hat theyhad living in themidst of themthe verymen who, on the first how of an opportunity,wereready to compass the subversion of the democracy . . . : Dissertations ndDiscussions,i (London, 1859), p. 540.

The ANNUAL CONFERENCE of the Past and PresentSocietywill be held on Monday,9 July1962 at BirkbeckCollege,London.The subjectwillbe:COLONIALISM AND NATIONALISMIN AFRICA AND EUROPEFull details,witha replyform, re givenon the leafletinsertednthis ssue.The ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the Past andPresentociety illbe held t theconclusion f he fternoonsession fthe Conference.

Documents

649993 Artigo Finley