Search

When Pythodorus in 411 B.C. moved in the Athenian Assembly his decree that Commissioners should be elected to draft measures for the security of the State, Cleitophon added a rider instructing the Commissioners προσαναξητῆσαι καὶ τοὺς πατρίονς νόμονς οὓς κλειδθένης ἓθηκεν ὃτε καθίδτη τὴν δημοκρατίαν, ὄπως ἅν ἀκούσαντες καὶ τούτων βολεύσωντααι τὸ ἂριστον. The instruction appears to have struck Aristotle as paradoxical and inept, for he has appended an explanation of Cleitophon's reasons which is also a criticism: ὡς οὐ δημοτικὴν ἁλλὰ παραπλησίαν οὖσαν τὴν Kλεισθένους πολιτείαν τῇ Σόλωνος. Indeed one would never imagine that the constitution of Cleisthenes as described by Aristotle (21) could have been seriously suggested as a model or a repertory of precedents for legislators intent, like Cleitophon's friends, on restoring the πάτριος πολιτεία, which it obviously disestablished; and the conjunction of τοĐς πατρίουσ with ὃτε καθίστη τὴν δημοκρατἰαν might seem to make the proposal a challenge or a mockery. Aristotle had already (22. 1, cf. 41. 2) given his opinion that by Cleisthenes' innovations δημοτικωτέρα πολĐ τῆς Σόλωνος ἐγένετο ὴ πολιτεἰα He recognized democratic features in Solon's laws, but they lay in the redress of social wrongs or in the method of administering justice rather than in the organization of the government; he regarded Solon's political changes, not as the establishment of democracy proper, but as a reform, conservative rather than revolutionary, of existent institutions. His comment on the rider implies that he would not have corrected Cleitophon if he had referred the Commissioners to Solon's ancestral laws, but to refer them to Cleisthenes' must, he thought, be ignorance, irony, or idiosyncrasy.

This paper focuses on two problems connected with our sources for Athenian politics between 510/09 and 488/7 B.C.:(i) In the Athenaion Politeia attributed to Aristotle (henceforth Ath.), ostracism is included in the laws of Cleisthenes (22.1). But later (22.3) the author of the Ath. dates the first ostracism (that of Hipparchus, son of Charmus) to the year 488/7. Depending on the date of Cleisthenes' laws, this leaves a gap of thirteen to twenty years between the institution of ostracism and its first use. Yet the very nature of the law suggests that it was passed for immediate use.(ii) Cleisthenes' rival, Isagoras, is described in Ath. 20.1 as φίλος τῶν τυράννων. This label conflicts with two details in the political struggle. It involves Cleomenes, who had recently expelled the tyrants from Athens, in an astounding volte-face in supporting one who is known as φίλος τῶν τνράννων. Secondly, Isagoras had had the opportunity of imposing by force the kind of government he wanted—but it was an oligarchy (Hdt. v 72.1, Ath. 20.3: a council of three hundred), not a tyranny. How did the inappropriate label originate?The reaction of most scholars to the first problem has been to reject the ascription of ostracism to Cleisthenes in Ath. 22.1 and 22.4 and date the institution of ostracism to shortly before the first recorded ostracism.

THE date of the enactment of the law of ostracism is known from a fragment of Androtion who said that Hipparchus, a relative of Pisistratus, was the first to be ostracized, and that the law of ostracism was then at first enacted on account of the (public) suspicion towards the followers of Pisistratus who had established his tyranny through being a popular leader and military commander.' Aristotle (Constitution of Athens 22) repeated, almost word for word, this account, adding that the law was the work of Cleisthenes who had Hipparchus in mind when he introduced ostracism.2 It is

THE sole direct reference to these reforms in ancient literature is Ath. Pol. 22. 5: E'UO'U, aera T(l)Gripy erT d T t atvou apxoV'or, xu4 aav -ToV evvx aZxOVToa xaT& cpu?oq ex Tcv 7pOXpLOe'VTV 5. 55) that the tyrants preserved the existing constitution; no lapse is allowed for here. Third, it is claimed that the author of Ath. Pol. was reflecting current popular dogma, which made Solon the founder of many, if not most, of the democratic institutions of the fourth century.2 The author argued from the sur ival in his own time of double sortition in the election of archons, which he coupled with the election of the tamiai.3 The opponents have the best of the argument; Aristotle is insurmountable if a'o'pea cannot mean X?4pcaL, which it cannot, in the contexts of the Politics and Ath. Pol.4 Two difficulties remain. Herodotus (6. 109. 2) tells us that the polemarch at Marathon was elected by lot. This is universally agreed to be an error, corrected even in antiquity.5 Demetrius of Phaleron (Plut. Arist. 1. 2 ) states that Aristides was chosen archon by lot, in 479/8. Though he is certainly wrong in his placing of Aristides, he does nothing to contradict the dating of the change to sortition. On the other hand Idomeneus (Plut. Arist. 1. 8), who seems to follow the accepted dating for Aristides' archonship (489/8), said that he was elected, not chosen by lot. Thus 487/6 seems the date for the first introduction of the lot for the archons; the evidence of Ath. Pol. 8. 1 and the phrase r -'v uupocvvaot should be disregarded. There are at least six different opinions on why the Athenians changed to the lot when they did: (1) The change was passed to prevent the Alcmaeonids and their friends from monopolizing the great offices.6 (2) It was passed to enhance the strategoi at the expense of the archons and so to support Cleisthenes' legislation.7 (3) Themistocles was behind it, to gain support among

Where areas within a region have been grouped artificially, it is possible to calculate the percentage of probability that adjacent areas will be grouped together. This is worked out for four reconstructions of the effect of Cleisthenes' reform in Attica in the late sixth century B.C. Suggestions are made for the application of the method to modern regions.

Athenian history in the fifth century B.C. has, on the whole, become a battlefield where only the trained hoplite ran compete. By contrast, the period from Cleisthenes down to 480 is one where the mere peltast still has an honest chance. There are—at least in internal history—practically no facts known, and ingenuity and imagination have been limited only by what the audience has been ready to believe. These limits have traditionally been generous. And the state of affairs has tended to permit and even to encourage what philosophers call the ‘conspiracy theory’ of history. This, of course, has many aspects; but the one that interests us here may be formulated as follows: ‘All historical events happen because someone planned that they should happen; and all historical events happen just as someone planned that they should happen, unless they are upset by the counter-plans of someone else. It is the duty of the historian to elucidate these plans and counter-plans, and in doing so he is explaining the events.’ Students of ancient history have always tended to adhere to this theory, perhaps because they are exceptionally rational people, or perhaps because most of them, in the past, grew up in an atmosphere like that of The Masters, where this theory can most profitably be applied. But in any case: the fewer the attested facts, the easier—and the more tempting—to combine them all in a grand design, successful or (at the worst) frustrated. And nowhere do these conditions more obviously obtain than in the period I have mentioned. The plans and counter-plans of Cleisthenes, Miltiades, Aristides and Themistocles fill the pages of our standard works with such exciting goings-on that the student ceases to be receptive to the still, small voice recalling him to the extent of our evidence. It is the purpose of this paper to examine one very small item of evidence, well known to us all, and to make as little as possible of it.

One of the earlier and more brilliant of the Greek tyrannies was that of the Orthagorids at Sicyon. It lasted for a whole century, which established a record for this somewhat unstable form of government. Of the founder and eponym Orthagoras, and of his immediate successors, we know very little, but its most distinguished figure, Cleisthenes, a contemporary of Solon at Athens, played a major role in the First Sacred War and made little Sicyon one of the most important of Greek cities in the first generation of the sixth century. He was also the grandfather of the Cleisthenes who established the Athenian democracy at the end of the century. There is, however, no specific dating in the ancient sources either for Orthagoras at the beginning of the hundred years of the tyranny or the deposition of the last tyrant Aeschines at the end. Various writers give genealogies of the family which are, of course, useful, but only for Cleisthenes and his two brothers Myron II and Isodemus, who preceded him, do we have the lengths of reigns.1 The uncertainties concerning the predecessors and successors of the three brothers make the dating of the Sicyonian tyranny one of the serious chronological problems of the seventh and sixth centuries. Opinions vary by as much as fifty years, some dating the tyranny ca. 656/5 to 556/5 and others ca. 615 to 515-510 B.C. In recent articles D. M. Leahy and N.G.L. Hammond have reopened the controversy.2 They have re-examined Rylands Papyrus 18 and discussed the date of the deposition of Aeschines. Hammond has examined also the various genealogies of the Orthagorid family, and from the papyrus and the genealogies has defended the earlier date of the tyranny. My purpose here is to reconsider the papyrus, and from the combined evidence of papyrus, genealogies, and other references to support the lower dating. First, let us look at the lines of the papyrus which refer to the Spartan deposition of tyrants. Plate 1 is a photograph of the papyrus.3 Column i