Athens' democracy

Author: (English) John Solly, translated by Wang Qiongshu
Translator: Wang Qiongshu / Country:
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2001-01-01
Features: Table 1: Solon's Economic Reforms
All debts were wiped out. This was, of course, an extremely radical measure, and many aristocratic families had to pay a high price, as they were the main creditors. This decision was known as the "seisakhtheia," meaning "to loosen the burden."
As a result of the above measures, the markers on the hektemorion land were abolished, meaning this land was no longer collateral and returned to the farmers. Similarly, wealthy families also lost a significant amount of this unjust wealth.
Slavery for debt repayment would no longer occur in the future. Or, to put it another way, the debtor's person was no longer a guarantee for repayment. Additionally, this measure retroactively granted freedom to Athenians who had been enslaved due to debt. Solon also made efforts to free slaves who had been sold overseas.
Except for olive oil, no other foodstuffs could be exported (Attica was rich in olive oil). Since grain exports were more profitable than selling it domestically, this measure aimed to prevent grain exports. Exporting grain not only led to soaring domestic prices but also caused grain shortages.
Reform the system of weights and measures to align with those used by other city-states like Corinth and Euboea. In terms of economic development, both Corinth and Euboea were more advanced than Athens. This measure facilitated trade between Athens and other city-states that had adopted the Corinthian and Euboean systems. Regardless of whether the trading class agreed with Solon's other reforms, this measure was widely welcomed by them.
Encourage skilled craftsmen to migrate from overseas to settle and do business in Athens. As a merchant himself, Solon was well aware that Athens' economy was quite backward. This was intended to quickly increase Athens' productivity. Other official positions (seemingly mainly financial positions) could be held by anyone except the laborer class, with the remaining three classes eligible. It is generally believed that Solon established a new 400-member council, with 100 members appointed from each tribe. The existence of this council is controversial. However, it is widely accepted that Solon was the founder, although there is little historical record of its operations in the 6th century BCE. We are unclear about how members were selected, but it seemed to consist of representatives from the three upper classes. Clearly, the council held considerable power, especially in supervising state officials and setting the agenda for the Assembly (see below). As a result, many powers originally exercised by the Areopagus were now taken over by the 400-member council. Despite appearing to be radical and significant changes, this was not the case. Although the tribal organization on which the new council was based is unknown in detail, it is certain that it was controlled by the aristocratic families of the tribes. Although the council was not entirely composed of their people (whether this is true or not is uncertain), the aristocracy still wielded considerable influence. Cleisthenes, who came to power in 508–507 BCE, completely abolished this tribal structure in the new constitution, a move of great significance. This further proves the existence of a tribal-based 400-member council at the time. At this point, members of the four property classes could participate in the Assembly, meaning all male citizens had the right to participate. This sounds like a democratic development, but one must not forget that the Assembly's agenda was still entirely determined by the 400-member council. In fact, the Assembly's political power seemed still quite limited, but it did include certain powers to supervise the actions of state officials. Solon carried out radical reforms in judicial proceedings. He introduced a new system of trials: members of each class could serve as jurors, and all citizens could appeal the decisions of magistrates to these newly established courts. The new courts did not replace the original functions of the magistrates in judicial matters. Instead, they served as a check on the magistrates in a democratic system. In fact, these courts (known as the "People's Assembly") may have been merely branches of the Assembly, or even the entire Assembly itself, meeting to act as judges. We cannot help but suspect that this measure reflected the widespread dissatisfaction of the people with the laws after the publication of the Draconian Code. To this end, Solon transferred the power of judicial review to the representative body of all citizens—a truly shrewd move. In this way, all citizens would participate in state affairs but would have no say in decision-making. What about the Areopagus? Its power was certainly reduced, but as an authoritative group of senior political figures, its status became even more prominent. At this time, its members were selected from more talented individuals. The Areopagus retained the power to try murder cases, and Solon formally entrusted it with the task of supervising laws and the constitution. This role was perhaps more important than some might imagine: it had to have real power to fulfill it. Therefore, the Areopagus must have had certain powers to veto the decisions of officials and other bodies. However, what we know about this operation is limited. The Assembly is the decision-making body of the city-state, theoretically composed of all male citizens over the age of 20. Detailed evidence of the Assembly's procedures mainly comes from the works of the 4th-century BCE orators (mainly Demosthenes) and the Constitution of Athens, which was clearly written around 330 BCE. We cannot be certain that this evidence fully matches the details of the Assembly's operations in the first 100 years of democracy. However, early evidence suggests that there was no major conflict with later procedures. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the general model of the Assembly's operations was quite fixed. Generally, the Assembly held four meetings during each prytany, totaling 40 meetings per year. Meetings were usually held at the Pnyx. The Pnyx was a gentle slope on the western side of the Acropolis, about 500 meters away (see Figure 4), with a capacity of about 6,000 people. However, for the first few decades of the rise of democracy, meetings may have been held in the Agora (market area). The total number of eligible citizens attending the Assembly was about 30,000, so it is clear that most people were not present most of the time. Those attending were mainly Athenian citizens. The journey from the eastern coast of Attica to Athens took two full days, and it was even rarer for people to travel from Marathon or the Sounion Peninsula specifically to attend the Assembly. Unless they had other matters to attend to, it was impossible to go to the Assembly just for that purpose. However, evidence shows that the Pnyx hall was often full when the Assembly met. The agenda for each meeting of the Assembly was arranged by the 500-member council, more accurately, by the current prytany. The Assembly could decide to add a specific item after the agenda, but otherwise, the agenda was controlled by the 500-member council and announced several days before the meeting. During the meeting, the current prytany was responsible for coordinating matters, with the chair of the 500-member council presiding over the entire meeting. The meeting began at dawn with prayers and a sacrifice of pigs. It usually ended before noon, although sometimes it lasted all day. After the Battle of Aegospotami in 406 BCE, a vote was postponed because it was dark and it was impossible to count the raised hands. The agenda of some meetings was at least partly decided in advance, especially in what were called "major meetings." Each prytany held four such meetings. Each meeting included trust votes on city-state officials, issues related to grain supply (the price of grain was determined by the city-state), defense issues, and some legal matters, such as reporting on confiscated real estate. Each member of the prytany read the draft of the 500-member council on each issue. Then the herald of the Assembly asked, "Is there anyone who wishes to speak?" Any member of the Assembly could stand up and express their opinion on the issue. Around 340 BCE, from the speech of Aeschines, we find the rules for speaking in the 500-member council and the Assembly: anyone speaking in the 500-member council or the Assembly must address the issue at hand and not discuss two separate issues simultaneously. In the same meeting, one could not speak twice on the same issue. One could not slander, abuse, or interrupt others. One could only speak from the rostrum and could not attack the presiding officer. Pericles strongly advocated establishing colonies in strategic locations. Under his urging, the Athenian government sent settlers to Naxos, Andros, Thrace, and Cythnos (all between 450–445 BCE). Colonies in southern Italy (Turi, 443 BCE), the ancient city of Amphipolis (437 BCE), and even earlier in Thrace (Brya, around 445 BCE) may also have been established under his influence. The trend of colonization swept the country overnight, aligning with Pericles' strategy for maritime hegemony and pleasing the common people. This may also have shown that the Citizenship Law of 451–450 BCE was indeed related to the rapid increase in the number of citizens. A total of about 4,000 citizens moved to these colonies. Pericles first proposed in 448 BCE to use the income from the Delian League to rebuild the Acropolis temples, which had been destroyed during the Persian invasion. He did indeed try to convene a meeting of all Greek city-states and include this plan on the agenda. The purpose of this was undoubtedly to win the moral support of city-states outside the League, as he knew the plan would not be welcomed within the League, and the meeting never took place, yet he persisted. Of course, the Assembly warmly welcomed this proposal, as it brought honor to Athens, confirmed its status as the first city of Greece, and created many job opportunities. However, opposition still arose. Now, the son of Menesicles, Thucydides (as he is usually called to distinguish him from the historian Thucydides, although the two were related), was the leader of the aristocratic opposition. He was related to Simon and became the leader of the aristocratic families after Simon's death in 450 BCE. The wealth of the aristocracy mainly came from land, so they believed Pericles' imperialistic policies were of no benefit to them. Indeed, the expansion of Athens' hegemony over the Aegean Sea offered them very little benefit. However, Thucydides opposed Pericles' plan to rebuild the temples on moral grounds: he believed that the tribute paid by the allies was for resisting the Persian invasion and that it was unreasonable to use it to build temples. Pericles countered that the allies paid tribute to accept Athenian protection, and Athens did provide protection; beyond that, Athens had full authority to decide how to use the money. In 443 BCE, Pericles proposed using a vote of ostracism to decide whether to adopt this plan. He must have been very confident that his own chances of being ostracized were negligible. He was right: Thucydides was exiled. And Thucydides' departure wiped out the last organized opposition to Pericles among the aristocracy. Indeed, this was a very positive outcome. The people of Mytilene and Milo may not have seen it this way. No political system can guarantee that all people will always act rationally, humanely, or even in the common interest. At least, compared to other political systems, Athenian democracy gave more people a chance to try. There is now a trend to look back fondly on Athenian democracy and see it as the source of all modern democratic systems. However, this idea must be carefully evaluated. For ancient civilizations, later historians often viewed Athenian democracy as an interesting experiment rather than something to be praised. Plato and Aristotle, who lived under the Athenian democratic system, did not believe it was the best form of government. It is also understandable that Greek kings and Roman senators did not welcome democracy. Roman emperors, of course, were even less enthusiastic. The medieval world rarely mentioned the concept of democracy unless it was as a curiosity from classical Greece. The development of modern democracy is not based on people's admiration for Athenian democracy. It has its own long and winding history. Therefore, the ideals of democracy between the two are not continuous. Additionally, we must remember that not everyone has the same ideals at this time.