What do you think?
Rate this book
The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology
The Athenian democracy of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. is the most famous and perhaps the most nearly perfect example of direct democracy. Covering the period 403-322 B.C., Mogens Herman Hansen focuses on the crucial last thirty years, which coincided with the political career of Demosthenes. Hansen distinguishes between the city’s seven political institutions: the Assembly, the nomothetai, the People’s Court, the boards of magistrates, the Council of Five Hundred, the Areopagos, and ho boulomenos. He discusses how Athenians conceived liberty both as the ability to participate in the decision-making process and as the right to live without oppression from the state or other citizens.
464 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1987
9 people are currently reading
296 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 8, 2012
This is a masterful treatment of a topic whose many sources, primary and secondary, Hansen has thoroughly mastered. It is the best available general book on the topic, imo
February 3, 2024
Hansen argues that the 4th century BCE democracy during the time of Demosthenes was a more moderate and restricted form of democracy than assembly-led radical democracy of 5th century during the time of Perikles.
“If the Athenians did not succeed in creating something radically different from the ‘radical’ democracy, maybe that is not what they were trying to do. They simply wanted to modify their constitution and place some controls on the unlimited power of the people. The tendency of the reforms is clear: the Athenians wanted to obviate a return to the political crises and military catastrophes of the Peloponnesian War. In spite of the philosophers it can hardly be denied that the Athenians in the fourth century were weary of extreme ‘radical’ principles and were trying to set in their place if not ‘moderate’, then a ‘modified’, democracy, in which the courts and the nomothetai were the organs of control for keeping the Assembly and the political leaders in their place and for re-establishing respect for the laws (304).”
The strength of the book is the way it goes into the nuts-and-bolts of how the Athenian democracy worked in this period, sometimes in overwhelming levels of detail for the non-specialist.
If there was any question about how different the Athenian democracy was to our secular modern versions, meetings of the assembly began with a sacrifice of a pig in which its blood was used to purify the assembly. The assembly discussed and voted on matters that the prytaneis put on the agenda, which first had to be passed as a preliminary decree by the Council of Five Hundred. Every issue was first considered by the Council before it could be considered by the Assembly, while every decree approved by the Assembly could be appealed to the People’s Court. Hansen estimates that half of the decrees that came from the Council were there for them to ratify without further discussion, while the other half of decrees were modifications or decrees made directly in the assembly to open issues.
The Assembly’s power was more limited in the 4th century BCE than in its earlier Periklean form due to the Athenians blaming the losses of the Peloponnesian War on demagogues who manipulated the people. The primary role of the Assembly around 403/2 was to elect magistrates, judge certain political prosecutions (and this was removed around 355 BCE), and pass decrees related to foreign policy and administrative acts, which were different and less important than laws. Decrees consisted of grants of citizenships and honors, foreign and military policy such as declaring war, sending envoys, and making alliances, and organizing religious festivals, which mostly involved decrees about financing them. The Assembly only elected around 100 magistrates with the rest being chosen by lot and these magistrates had to be approved through the vetting process known as dokimasia. On the other hand, the most important magistrates such as the military generals and major financial officers were the ones elected by the Assembly.
In the 4th century, a council of nine proedroi in which one chairman was chosen by lot, began to preside over the Assembly meetings. Their job was to make sure the Assembly addressed every item on the agenda, to organize the debate within the Assembly, and count the vote. The Assembly voted by raising their hands for or against a proposal. By 355 BCE there was likely around 30 meetings of the assembly a year and it was required to have at least 6000 people to establish a quorum. Every citizen had the right to speak during a meeting as debate took the form of long persuasive speeches rather than direct discussion. Most likely the majority who attended any assembly meeting merely listened and only a small portion gave speeches.
“To make a speech in the Assembly demanded some eloquence and rhetorical training, which not every citizen possessed. That is why debate was dominated by a small group of half- or fully-professional orators, some of whom had been trained by sophists or in the school of Isokrates or in Plato’s Academy (144).”
While the Assembly could only pass decrees and not laws, it was the Assembly who had the power to call the nomothetai (which could legislate and revise actual laws). Any citizen, archon, or member of the Assembly could challenge a law, which would then be brought to a board of nomothetai to uphold the law or revise it to address the issue. The nomothetai as the primary legislative institution was setup in 4th century BCE, its members had to swear the Heliastic Oath, and were probably selected by lot from the panel of 6000 that served as the potential jurors.
Many historians consider the People’s Court the highest institution of Athenian government. Almost all cases could be appealed to the People’s Court. Initially magistrates held the power to arbitrate financial disagreements involving small sums, but by the 4th century magistrates’ judicial power was weakened,
making the court the primary place of judgement for most issues with magistrates playing an investigatory role.
Jurors had to be 30 years of age, selected by lot to be in the initial 6000 person pool, swear the Heliastic Oath, and then picked by lot among the 6000 person pool to serve on a particular case for that day. Which case they ended up was also chosen by lot to prevent corruption by bribery since no juror or potential briber would know what case any individual would be assigned. A panel of jurors could hear up to four cases in a single day and there session might last nine hours and pay was 3 obols a day.
The courts didn’t only judge financial cases between disputing parties and criminal acts, but also judged bids for public contracts. No professional or experts of law presided over the court like in modern judiciaries, but magistrates chosen by lot from the citizenry managed the courts and individual cases. All judgements were by vote of jury, not by a judge or magistrate. Litigants had to bring the case forward and represent themselves. There were no lawyers.
Another important part of the Athenian democracy was the citizen magistrates. In Hansen’s estimation there were probably around 700 magistrates total. Magistrates had to be 30 and went through a vetting trial of qualifications and characters called dokimasia. Most magistrates were selected by lot, the same people couldn’t hold the same office, and offices lasted a year. The exception were Military generals who could hold the same position multiple times and certain financial officers that were selected by voting rather than by lot. Although magistrates received pay in the time of Perikles, Hansen believes that after the Oligarchical Revolution of 411 that pay to serve as a magistrate was never restored. One way Athenians controlled corruption was that any citizen could bring any Magistrate up on charges for corruption to the court.
The role of magistrates was to call meetings, prepare the agenda of the other state organs, oversee the daily allotment of jurors in the People’s Court, and execute the laws of nomothetai or decrees of the Assembly. Some other roles included:
1. religious magistrates
2. Army and naval commanders
3. Financial magistrates
4. Inspectors in the market, of buildings, roads, etc.
5. Judicial magistrates
6. Steering-committees for the people’s assembly
The most important group of magistrates was the Council of Five Hundred whose representation was based on the 139 demes. Like the Assembly, it was summoned by the prytaneis who also set the agenda. After 400 BCE, a board of nine proedroi were chosen by lot to oversee the council. They worked with other magistrates to oversee and manage the state finances and prepared the motions for decrees that the assembly would address and pass or reject by vote. In general, a new law would first go through the Council, then the Assembly, and then they would call the nomothetai. The Council also retained some judicial powers over the magistrates and corruption, could imprison people for suspected treason, and punish tax-collectors for unpaid debt.
The last important body was the Council of Aeropagos, which was one of the oldest institutions of Athenian government dating from before the democracy. It consisted of former archons and it was held for life.
Ephialtes’ reforms diminished its power to considering only cases of homicide, but after the restoration of the democracy in 403/2 BCE its power was increased and it helped supervise the enforcement of laws by the magistrates alongside the Council of Five Hundred. It gained the power to judge any citizen for any offense by the 330s.
Hansen also goes into the benefits of citizenship and the Athenian conceptions of democracy’s principles. In the democracy in the time of Perikles many of the old aristocratic families from before the democratic reforms still played leading roles in the democracy, but by the time of Demosthenes very few aristocrats were rhetors or strategoi (military generals).
People living in Athens divided into three groups: citizen, resident foreigners, and slaves. “Athens was a society based on ‘orders’ rather than ‘classes’, for the tripartition was by legal status (86).” However, these statuses could change. Slaves could become metics if freed, metics a citizen by a legal decree or be made a slave for committing certain offenses, and a citizen could lose rights as a legal penalty for certain crimes. Metics, slaves, and citizens worked alongside each other on building projects, participated in the same religious festivals, and metics often lived and were buried alongside Athenian citizens. The primary difference was political participation and the privileges this conferred.
Some of the benefits of citizenship were paid political service, social security of two obols for the disabled, support for children whose father had died in military service, and distributions of corn in times of crisis. Likewise another advantage was that there were different punishments for citizens than metics and slaves for the same crimes. For example, murdering a citizen was punished with death, murdering a metic with lifetime banishment, and murdering a slave with a fine. While two duties all Athenians citizens had was taxes and military service.
Although some scholars have argued the distinction between Athenian democracy and modern democracy rests with modern democracy being based on protecting individual rights against encroachment by the government, Hansen disagrees with this view. With the exception of thieves caught in the act, who could be killed immediately, everyone had a right to due process of the law and a trial for alleged crimes. Athenian citizens also couldn’t be tortured and had some protections of property. The Athenian concept of equality referred to the political sphere, but not social and economic sphere. Hansen argues it was based not only on equal political rights, but it was based on equality of opportunity. Everyone had the opportunity to participate, but rewards for that participation were based on achievement.
“Political power was based on eloquence, and the demand for eloquence called into being an entirely new genre of pride, namely rhetoric (12).”
It became important for political leaders to train in rhetoric and this is the origins of the infamous Sophists.
“If the Athenians did not succeed in creating something radically different from the ‘radical’ democracy, maybe that is not what they were trying to do. They simply wanted to modify their constitution and place some controls on the unlimited power of the people. The tendency of the reforms is clear: the Athenians wanted to obviate a return to the political crises and military catastrophes of the Peloponnesian War. In spite of the philosophers it can hardly be denied that the Athenians in the fourth century were weary of extreme ‘radical’ principles and were trying to set in their place if not ‘moderate’, then a ‘modified’, democracy, in which the courts and the nomothetai were the organs of control for keeping the Assembly and the political leaders in their place and for re-establishing respect for the laws (304).”
The strength of the book is the way it goes into the nuts-and-bolts of how the Athenian democracy worked in this period, sometimes in overwhelming levels of detail for the non-specialist.
If there was any question about how different the Athenian democracy was to our secular modern versions, meetings of the assembly began with a sacrifice of a pig in which its blood was used to purify the assembly. The assembly discussed and voted on matters that the prytaneis put on the agenda, which first had to be passed as a preliminary decree by the Council of Five Hundred. Every issue was first considered by the Council before it could be considered by the Assembly, while every decree approved by the Assembly could be appealed to the People’s Court. Hansen estimates that half of the decrees that came from the Council were there for them to ratify without further discussion, while the other half of decrees were modifications or decrees made directly in the assembly to open issues.
The Assembly’s power was more limited in the 4th century BCE than in its earlier Periklean form due to the Athenians blaming the losses of the Peloponnesian War on demagogues who manipulated the people. The primary role of the Assembly around 403/2 was to elect magistrates, judge certain political prosecutions (and this was removed around 355 BCE), and pass decrees related to foreign policy and administrative acts, which were different and less important than laws. Decrees consisted of grants of citizenships and honors, foreign and military policy such as declaring war, sending envoys, and making alliances, and organizing religious festivals, which mostly involved decrees about financing them. The Assembly only elected around 100 magistrates with the rest being chosen by lot and these magistrates had to be approved through the vetting process known as dokimasia. On the other hand, the most important magistrates such as the military generals and major financial officers were the ones elected by the Assembly.
In the 4th century, a council of nine proedroi in which one chairman was chosen by lot, began to preside over the Assembly meetings. Their job was to make sure the Assembly addressed every item on the agenda, to organize the debate within the Assembly, and count the vote. The Assembly voted by raising their hands for or against a proposal. By 355 BCE there was likely around 30 meetings of the assembly a year and it was required to have at least 6000 people to establish a quorum. Every citizen had the right to speak during a meeting as debate took the form of long persuasive speeches rather than direct discussion. Most likely the majority who attended any assembly meeting merely listened and only a small portion gave speeches.
“To make a speech in the Assembly demanded some eloquence and rhetorical training, which not every citizen possessed. That is why debate was dominated by a small group of half- or fully-professional orators, some of whom had been trained by sophists or in the school of Isokrates or in Plato’s Academy (144).”
While the Assembly could only pass decrees and not laws, it was the Assembly who had the power to call the nomothetai (which could legislate and revise actual laws). Any citizen, archon, or member of the Assembly could challenge a law, which would then be brought to a board of nomothetai to uphold the law or revise it to address the issue. The nomothetai as the primary legislative institution was setup in 4th century BCE, its members had to swear the Heliastic Oath, and were probably selected by lot from the panel of 6000 that served as the potential jurors.
Many historians consider the People’s Court the highest institution of Athenian government. Almost all cases could be appealed to the People’s Court. Initially magistrates held the power to arbitrate financial disagreements involving small sums, but by the 4th century magistrates’ judicial power was weakened,
making the court the primary place of judgement for most issues with magistrates playing an investigatory role.
Jurors had to be 30 years of age, selected by lot to be in the initial 6000 person pool, swear the Heliastic Oath, and then picked by lot among the 6000 person pool to serve on a particular case for that day. Which case they ended up was also chosen by lot to prevent corruption by bribery since no juror or potential briber would know what case any individual would be assigned. A panel of jurors could hear up to four cases in a single day and there session might last nine hours and pay was 3 obols a day.
The courts didn’t only judge financial cases between disputing parties and criminal acts, but also judged bids for public contracts. No professional or experts of law presided over the court like in modern judiciaries, but magistrates chosen by lot from the citizenry managed the courts and individual cases. All judgements were by vote of jury, not by a judge or magistrate. Litigants had to bring the case forward and represent themselves. There were no lawyers.
Another important part of the Athenian democracy was the citizen magistrates. In Hansen’s estimation there were probably around 700 magistrates total. Magistrates had to be 30 and went through a vetting trial of qualifications and characters called dokimasia. Most magistrates were selected by lot, the same people couldn’t hold the same office, and offices lasted a year. The exception were Military generals who could hold the same position multiple times and certain financial officers that were selected by voting rather than by lot. Although magistrates received pay in the time of Perikles, Hansen believes that after the Oligarchical Revolution of 411 that pay to serve as a magistrate was never restored. One way Athenians controlled corruption was that any citizen could bring any Magistrate up on charges for corruption to the court.
The role of magistrates was to call meetings, prepare the agenda of the other state organs, oversee the daily allotment of jurors in the People’s Court, and execute the laws of nomothetai or decrees of the Assembly. Some other roles included:
1. religious magistrates
2. Army and naval commanders
3. Financial magistrates
4. Inspectors in the market, of buildings, roads, etc.
5. Judicial magistrates
6. Steering-committees for the people’s assembly
The most important group of magistrates was the Council of Five Hundred whose representation was based on the 139 demes. Like the Assembly, it was summoned by the prytaneis who also set the agenda. After 400 BCE, a board of nine proedroi were chosen by lot to oversee the council. They worked with other magistrates to oversee and manage the state finances and prepared the motions for decrees that the assembly would address and pass or reject by vote. In general, a new law would first go through the Council, then the Assembly, and then they would call the nomothetai. The Council also retained some judicial powers over the magistrates and corruption, could imprison people for suspected treason, and punish tax-collectors for unpaid debt.
The last important body was the Council of Aeropagos, which was one of the oldest institutions of Athenian government dating from before the democracy. It consisted of former archons and it was held for life.
Ephialtes’ reforms diminished its power to considering only cases of homicide, but after the restoration of the democracy in 403/2 BCE its power was increased and it helped supervise the enforcement of laws by the magistrates alongside the Council of Five Hundred. It gained the power to judge any citizen for any offense by the 330s.
Hansen also goes into the benefits of citizenship and the Athenian conceptions of democracy’s principles. In the democracy in the time of Perikles many of the old aristocratic families from before the democratic reforms still played leading roles in the democracy, but by the time of Demosthenes very few aristocrats were rhetors or strategoi (military generals).
People living in Athens divided into three groups: citizen, resident foreigners, and slaves. “Athens was a society based on ‘orders’ rather than ‘classes’, for the tripartition was by legal status (86).” However, these statuses could change. Slaves could become metics if freed, metics a citizen by a legal decree or be made a slave for committing certain offenses, and a citizen could lose rights as a legal penalty for certain crimes. Metics, slaves, and citizens worked alongside each other on building projects, participated in the same religious festivals, and metics often lived and were buried alongside Athenian citizens. The primary difference was political participation and the privileges this conferred.
Some of the benefits of citizenship were paid political service, social security of two obols for the disabled, support for children whose father had died in military service, and distributions of corn in times of crisis. Likewise another advantage was that there were different punishments for citizens than metics and slaves for the same crimes. For example, murdering a citizen was punished with death, murdering a metic with lifetime banishment, and murdering a slave with a fine. While two duties all Athenians citizens had was taxes and military service.
Although some scholars have argued the distinction between Athenian democracy and modern democracy rests with modern democracy being based on protecting individual rights against encroachment by the government, Hansen disagrees with this view. With the exception of thieves caught in the act, who could be killed immediately, everyone had a right to due process of the law and a trial for alleged crimes. Athenian citizens also couldn’t be tortured and had some protections of property. The Athenian concept of equality referred to the political sphere, but not social and economic sphere. Hansen argues it was based not only on equal political rights, but it was based on equality of opportunity. Everyone had the opportunity to participate, but rewards for that participation were based on achievement.
“Political power was based on eloquence, and the demand for eloquence called into being an entirely new genre of pride, namely rhetoric (12).”
It became important for political leaders to train in rhetoric and this is the origins of the infamous Sophists.
October 6, 2024
I had heard several times by historians and theorists that this was the book to read on Athenian democracy, and after finishing it, I can only agree with them. It is the summation of decades of work by one the preeminent classical historians. It is meticulously argued such that virtually every empirical claim is cited with evidence (some chapters have hundreds of citations), and filled with detail. That description might sound intimidating or off-putting, but even with such a hard-nosed, empiricist methodology, Athens' unique polity shines through and fascinates. The institutions are the most bizarre and intricate overlapping set of lotteries, elections, screening-tests imaginable. Want to pass a law? Need to get the lottery-selected Council of 500 (who were screened via 'dokimasia') to put it on the agenda for the Assembly, which then discusses and deliberates about the agenda item, votes on it, and then has a lottery-selected group, the nomothetai (who are from a larger pool of lottery selected citizens), write the law, which can then be challenged in court by literally any citizen who wants to. The jury presiding over that case is another several hundred lottery-selected citizens. Want to be president? Well, through a series of lotteries, any citizen has a 25% chance (not a typo) of becoming president for a day. Those processes, and the dozens of other, similarly complex ones, were all carried out to run a few hundred square-miles with a quarter million people. Athens is such a lightning in a bottle in the history of organized human life that the material itself makes the book a page-turner.
January 27, 2024
The best book I read on the Athenian Democracy - an intelectual delight, from probably one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable scholar in classical studies from our time
Read
September 25, 2015A comprehensive account of the workings of Athenian democracy and of Athenian political ideology.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews