So, under the Thirty, citizenship was restricted to a small body of 3000 eligible participants -- the cavalry and a few members of the infantry chosen for their political reliability. Above this small citizen body was a Council of 500 members and the Thirty. Anyone not on the short list of citizens could be executed without trial on orders of the Thirty. Only full citizens had the right to trial, which took place before the Council.
Does any of this sound familiar? These institutions were, in all probability, borrowed from Sparta. Recall that Sparta had a small citizen body compared to the total population, a Council of thirty (required to be over 60 and elected for life by voice vote), and five Ephors, elected to a single one-year term. The Ephors had the semi-despotic power to remove any lesser magistrate from office before his term was up, and to impose minor punishments on citizens without trial and in their own judgment, and the despotic power to order the execution without trial of any non-citizen. Citizens facing major charges (presumably, anything carrying a sentence of execution, exile, or imprisonment) had the right to trial. Trial was by the Council. Nor should this be surprising, Critias, after all admired Sparta and called theirs "the best of all constitutions." Presumably the Thirty were based on the five Ephors, and both trial by the Council and allowing executive powers to order any non-citizen executed without trial were borrowed from similar provisions in Sparta.
Obviously there were differences. The Thirty had a Council of 500 members, as opposed to the Spartan Council of 30. How the Thirty's Council was chosen and the length of their terms is not told. Perhaps the Thirty were not in power long enough to iron out that sort of detail. Likewise, Sparta had five Ephors, and they were elected to a single one-year term. Presumably knowing that they would permanently return to being private citizens when their one-year term was up restrained the Ephors from the sorts of abuse of power that would otherwise have been tempting to near-despots. The Thirty had no such constraints. We are not told if they even considered setting a term or system of election, but to judge from their behavior, probably not. Nor are we told how the number of thirty was decided. Since Athens had ten tribes and chose most offices by a certain number of holders per tribe, it is certainly possible that the Thirty were three from each tribe. But it is also possible that the number was based on the Spartan Council.
The Ephors' authority to order a non-citizen executed without trial was a brutal one. Many seemingly random killings of helots were probably targeted killings ordered by the Ephors. Thucydides recounts a shocking mass killing, and smaller scale instances may have happened on occasion. Could the Ephors order an ex-citizen executed without trial? And who decided to strip a Spartan of his citizenship, and how? I did not find the answer to either of these questions; most likely we do not know. It seems unlikely that the Ephors could have an ex-citizen executed without trial. Loss of citizenship in Sparta was not necessarily for any infamous act. Sometimes it was simply because a participant could no longer afford to pay for his meals at the common dining hall. As for the procedure required to disenfranchise a citizen, who knows. But it seems safe to assume that it would have been unheard-of and unthinkable for the Ephors to arbitrarily strip one of their own number of his citizenship and have him executed almost on the spot! In short, although the Ephors' power over non-citizens was a despotic one, and although their minor punishments of citizens may see arbitrary to us, but they never descended into the sort of unrestrained lawlessness we see by the Thirty.
The expression narrow and tight oligarchy certainly applies to the Thirty. Recall the estimate that Attica (Athens and the surrounding countryside that made up the state) had approximately 300,000 inhabitants, of with about 100,000 (a third of the total) were citizen families, and about 30,000 adult male citizens, i.e., eligible participants. If correct, that would make eligible participants about 10% of the population. The Thirty would have reduced the number of eligible participants to 3,000, making up about a tenth of their former number, and about 1% of the total population. This is a narrow oligarchy. And the Thirty seem to have made it very tight indeed. They replaced trial by jury with trial by the Council in criminal cases, and restricted the jury's discretion in civil cases. They apparently had the Council pass laws without recourse to the Assembly, an unheard-of thing for Greek city-states. And there is rather strong evidence that the Thirty reduced even the Council to a mere rubber stamp. They were "ordered" to pass this measure; of all those tried before the Council, only one was acquitted,* and above all, the conviction of Theramenes, procured at dagger-point, made clear that the real power lay with the Thirty and their bully-boys, and the Council were no more than window dressing. The Thirty were so narrow and tight an oligarchy they might better be termed a junta, or at least a triandarchy. And it seems most plausible that Critias would have preferred a personal dictatorship.
Then there were the 1500 killed, more men killed without trial in three months, says the orator than the total number of allies the Athenians compelled to go to Athens for trial throughout the duration of her empire. I must admit with some shame that my first reaction to this was that by standards of modern-day totalitarianism, it doesn't sound like all that much. Even granting that the population was much smaller in those days, 1500 amounts to one-half of one percent of the total population, or about 5% of the number of eligible participants.** But clearly the number shocked contemporaries, who found their own points of comparison. Isocrates, as we have seen, called it more than the total number of allies brought to Athens for trial for the duration of the empire. Xenophon calls it "almost more" that the Peloponnesians killed in ten years of war.***
And what of the 5000 who fled the city? This is hard to say. Presumably after Athens surrendered large numbers of rural residents who had been forced to take refuge in the city walls left voluntarily. And, if Xenophon is to be believed, everyone not on the list of 3000 (and their immediate households, of course) was ordered to leave. Still, even with the understanding that "the plural of anecdote is not data," I think our best understanding of what Athens must have looked like during the declining days of the oligarchy must come from Xenophon's Memorabilia. A friend lamented that so many of kinsmen had fled to the Piraeus and left their womenfolk in his care that he now had 14 people in the house, not counting slaves, and there were so few people left in the city that he could not get anything out of his house property (presumably meaning that there was no one to rent to). This is probably the most vivid portrait we have of Athens in the final days before the oligarchy fell.
A subject I will address in my next post.
_____________________________________
*Again, though, it is not clear whether that means total, or only in the case of this particular batch of defendants.
**Then again, it was half the size of the number of participants the Thirty would have allowed, which is considerable.
***If so, then clearly reports of a massacre of 3000 or 4000 captured sailors after Athens' final defeat are a gross exaggeration.
Friday, January 1, 2016
The Thirty in Power (404 BC)
The Thirty started by appointing supporters to the Council and various magistracies, including ten governors to the Piraeus (the outlying port), eleven guardians of the prison, and three hundred retainers carrying whips. The ten at Piraeus include Charmides, son of Glaucon, the cousin of Critias and Plato and pupil of Socrates.* The Eleven were headed by Satyrus, "most audacious and shameless," who had arranged the execution of Cleophon and the arrest of Stombichides for opposing the peace. As for the Council, it had 500 members as before, including a majority of members of the old Council.
Xenophon and Diodorus agree that they delayed drawing up and publishing law, although Aristotle names a few changes that appear to meet with his approval. They restored the old powers of the Aeropagus and took away many of the uncertainties in law that gave discretion to popular jurors, such as allowing a will to be invalidated if the testator was insane, senile, or under the influence of a woman, and other such instances that Aristotle did not name. This would appear to indicate that they continued to use juries in civil matters. Criminal matters were transferred from juries to the Council; at least all criminal trials mentioned under the Thirty were by the Council. Xenophon, it should be added, says that Critias and Charicles were primarily responsible for drawing the new laws and mentions a significant one. They banned teaching the "art of words." Xenophon sees this as a calculated insult to Socrates for upbraiding Critias for being overly enamored with one of Socrates' younger pupils. Presumably they also saw the "art of words" as potentially politically subversive as well.
They began by executing malicious informants and demagogic politicians, after trial by the Council and, our three historians assure us, the people as a whole approved, or were at least indifferent. First they came for the Communists. . . .** Of course, the families and friend of these victims saw them in rather another light. They included Dionysodorus, Strombichides and their alleged co-conspirators who opposed the terms of the peace. Ordered to be tried by jury, they were instead tried by the Council, voting openly in the presence of the Thirty. We are told that "all those who had entered that Council chamber for their trial were condemned to death: not one was acquitted," except the informant. It is not clear whether that means throughout the duration of the Thirty, or only of this alleged conspiracy.
Seeking, then, to consolidate their power, they sent two of the Thirty (Aristotles and Aeschines) to Sparta to ask Lysander for a garrison to support them, which they promised to pay in order to save Sparta the expense.*** Lysander sent a garrison of 700, commanded by Callibius, who the Thirty proceeded to win over with bribes and flattery. Plutarch gives the example of Autolycus, an athlete who threw Callibius down. Callibius struck him with his staff. At the time, Lysander disapproved, saying that was no way to treat a free man, but the Thirty soon executed Autolycus to gratify Callibius. Keep in mind that to the Greeks, sports were sacred activities, and a Olympian athlete's standing dwarfed even what we give sports stars today. Now imagine what safety anyone else could find under the Thirty.
The Thirty then proceeded to execute any leading politician, even the most conservative, who they saw as a potential threat. Nicias' brother, Eucrates, came from a most conservative political family and was wrongfully arrested over the vandalism of the herms, which cannot have endeared the democracy to him. But when offered a place in the Thirty he indignantly refused and was executed, as was Nicias' son, Niceratus. Other victims named included Antiphon, who supplied the city with two rapid warships, and Leon of Salamis (hold onto that name). Needing money to pay the Spartan garrison, Theognis and Peison, members of the Thirty, proposed executing wealthy metics on false charges to seize their property. They proposed to kill ten, including two poor people to disguise their intent (Lysias), or one each (Xenophon), or two each (Diodorus).
We have information on two of such arrests. Lysias, later a professional speech writer, was a wealthy metic whose family had a shield factory. Peison and others of the Thirty showed up in person to make the arrest, accompanied by their retainers, of course. Lysias bribed Peison into letting him go. Peison did not dare release him at once because others of the Thirty showed up, but took him to a house for holding, where Theognis was guarding others. Lysias asked the owner to bribe him as well and, while he was distracted, slipped out an unlocked back door and fled. His brother was less fortunate; he was arrested in the street, executed without trial (by hemlock), and denied even a cloak for his funeral. The Thirty took even his wife's earrings.
As for Leon, the Thirty summoned five men, including Socrates and ordered them to arrest him, in order to force as many to be their accomplices as possible. The other four proceeded; Socrates returned home. The Thirty gave many such orders, wishing for as many accomplices as possible in their crimes. This is not the only mention we have of Leon. Andocides in a later speech attempts to discredit his accuser by pointing out that he took part in the arrest of Leon and his therefore responsible for his execution without trial. Theramenes names him, along with the son of Nicias as "men of worth and standing" who should not have been executed.
This had led to a certain curiosity about who Leon of Salamis was. The journalist I.F. Stone, in his Trial of Socrates (p. 113) simply assumes that he was a wealthy metic, like Lysias. I assume that the reasons for his assumption are (1) "of Salamis" implies a foreign origin, (2) the absence of a trial implies a non-citizen, and (3) Stone is eager to portray all of Athens' aristocracy as supporting the Thirty. And certainly killing a metic who had done no wrong simply for his money was an injustice and would have been recognized by the Athenians as such. Socrates might boast of his refusal to arrest a metic as proof of his commitment to justice or Andocides hold out the wrongful arrest of a metic as something to discredit his accuser. But it seems unlikely that Theramenes would have named a metic as on a par with the son of Nicias. To be named along with Nicias' family implies a citizen, and a prominent one at that. And Salamis was an island just off the coast of Athens, under Athens' control since Solon's time. A citizen could certainly have been of Salamis. All the historian emphasize the wealth and prominence of the Thirty's victims. This has led modern historians to speculate that he may have been the admiral who commanded during the war, rallied the fleet against the oligarchic coup in 411 BC, was elected after Alcibides was deposed, and was last seen with Conon, trapped at Lesbos. The speculation was that he was on one of the two ships that tried to carry the message to Athens but was captured and repatriated after the war.
Theramenes, though originally a supporter of Critias and his measures increasingly began to protest, saying that it was not reasonable to execute politicians who were not populists simply because they were popular. Critias answered that anyone who was popular was dangerous because he was a possible source of leadership for people who opposed the Thirty. But it became increasingly clear that even if the Thirty eliminated any outsider who might offer leadership to their opponents, a new potential leader of their enemies was arising -- Theramenes himself. Critias and the rest tried at first to conciliate him by proposing a citizen body of 3000. They then kept postponing listing the names. To Theramenes, this must have looked like history repeating itself. Recall that at the time of 400, they had promised to create a larger citizen body with 5000 eligible participants, but kept postponing it, wanting all power to remain with the 400.
While historians generally agree that the 5000 were not meant literally and ultimately meant all men of hoplite status or higher, the 3000 appear to have been meant quite literally, and to have consisted of (most of) the cavalry and some hoplites selected as politically reliable. Theramenes protested that there was no way to limit worthy participants to any fixed number. As with the 400, the Thirty postponed publishing their list of the 3000 and kept changing who was on it to keep the people in suspense. It is pure speculation on my party, but this leads me to suspect that when the Thirty sent out citizen's posses to make arrests, like the one that Socrates was on, there may have been a carrot at work as well as a stick. They may have been offering hoplites a chance to "earn" their citizenship, or watching their reaction to see who to admit.
Theramenes also protested that the Thirty were trying to do two contrary things -- to build their government on force, and to make the rulers weaker than the ruled. The rule based on force is straightforward enough. I never understood what he meant by saying that the rulers were weaker than the ruled. But I am inclined to think that George Grote (p. 466) gets it right, saying that he meant that the rulers were outnumbered by an armed and angry populace. The Thirty resolved that latter problem in much the same way as Pisistratus over a century earlier. They called out the soldiers for review, taking care to assemble all the ones on their short list in the agora and to scatter the rest. When they set down their arms and went to eat, the Spartan garrison and the 3000 gathered them up and took them to the temple. The Thirty introduced a law to the Council "with orders to pass," allowing anyone not on the list of the 3000 to be executed without trial on the orders of the Thirty.
The Thirty then summoned the Council and had young men noted for their audacity present, with hidden daggers. Critias accused Theramenes before the Council of being a danger to their government. He minced no words. If their government was violent, well, you can't make omelets without breaking eggs. The common people would not agree to their form of government; it must therefore be imposed by force. Theramens opposed the oligarchy, let him suffer the consequences. He mocked Theramenes for his willingness to change sides, trying to please both oligarchs and democrats and only showing that he could be trusted by neither. Theramenes replied, making clear that he approved the first wave of executions but not of executing respectable citizens, of killing metics for their wealth, of disarming the citizenry or imposing a foreign garrison. He denounced these things, not so much on moral grounds (morality obviously meant nothing to Critias), but as making needless enemies. And he said that while he might be accused of favoring both sides, Critias favored neither, offending the common people under the democracy and the aristocracy under the oligarchy. That sounds very much like an accusation (probably accurate) of aspiring to be a one-man dictator. The Council applauded, and Theramenes was clearly going to be acquitted. Critias and the others then summoned their bully-boys, and Critias declared that since anyone not on the list of the 3000 could be executed without trial on the orders of the Thirty, he was excommunicating Theramenes from the citizen body and sentencing him to death. Theramenes seized the hearth, (all hearths were sacred to Hestia and therefore sanctuary), warning the Council that if the Thirty could deal so arbitrarily with one of their own, then none of them were safe, and saying that he did not expect Critias to respect sanctuary, but wanted to force him to incur the wrath of the gods. And, indeed, the Eleven dragged Theramenes from sanctuary. The Council, intimidated by the bully boys, dared not intervene. Theramenes drank his hemlock as a toast, in poison, to Critias.
Aristotle, incidentally, gives events in a different sequence, saying that the disarmament of the citizens and introduction of the garrison happened after Theramenes was executed, and that the pretext for removing him from the 3000 was a new law barring from citizenship anyone who opposed the 400.
All sources agree that the execution of Theramenes removed the last constraint on the Thirty. They evicted everyone not on the list of the 3000 from the city proper. Many fled to the countryside, or to the Piraeus (the outlying port), but they were not even safe there, as many were driven from their lands so that the Thirty could seize them, or evicted from the Piraeus. Refugees streamed from Athens. The Spartans forbade receiving any Athenians exiles and ordered them to be delivered up to the Thirty, imposing a five-talent fine on any city that disobeyed. Smaller states obeyed, but the Argives defied them, as did the Thebans (who had only recently favored turning Athens into pasture and selling its people as slaves). Aristotle estimates the total number of executions at 1500, a figure also given by the orator Isocrates, who also estimates that some 5,000 fled. Diodorus, with obvious exaggeration, says that half the citizens fled.
Next: Reflections on the Thirty
______________________________________
*Presumably counted among the youth that Socrates "corrupted."
**I actually got a whole new perspective on this famous poem from a speech by, of all people Julius Caesar. Originally I had simply thought of it as a warning that freedom is indivisible, that if you ignore wrongs done to others, others will ignore wrongs done to you. Later, when Jonah Goldberg war arguing that Hitler was a left-winger, this poem was an obvious refutation, showing how his victims marched a steady stream from left to right, from Communists to Socialists, to unions to Jews to Catholics. Bur reading Caesar's speech arguing that even the worst offenders should not be executed without trial, I realized it had another significance. The Communists were not very sympathetic victims to most Germans. Many were no doubt not merely indifferent but glad to seem them dragged away.
***Aristotle sets the arrival of the garrison later, after a revolt had begun. In this he appears either to be confusing the arrival of the garrison with a later request for aid or (my version suggests) whitewashing Theramenes by post-dating most of the Thirty's worst atrocities to after his execution.
Xenophon and Diodorus agree that they delayed drawing up and publishing law, although Aristotle names a few changes that appear to meet with his approval. They restored the old powers of the Aeropagus and took away many of the uncertainties in law that gave discretion to popular jurors, such as allowing a will to be invalidated if the testator was insane, senile, or under the influence of a woman, and other such instances that Aristotle did not name. This would appear to indicate that they continued to use juries in civil matters. Criminal matters were transferred from juries to the Council; at least all criminal trials mentioned under the Thirty were by the Council. Xenophon, it should be added, says that Critias and Charicles were primarily responsible for drawing the new laws and mentions a significant one. They banned teaching the "art of words." Xenophon sees this as a calculated insult to Socrates for upbraiding Critias for being overly enamored with one of Socrates' younger pupils. Presumably they also saw the "art of words" as potentially politically subversive as well.
They began by executing malicious informants and demagogic politicians, after trial by the Council and, our three historians assure us, the people as a whole approved, or were at least indifferent. First they came for the Communists. . . .** Of course, the families and friend of these victims saw them in rather another light. They included Dionysodorus, Strombichides and their alleged co-conspirators who opposed the terms of the peace. Ordered to be tried by jury, they were instead tried by the Council, voting openly in the presence of the Thirty. We are told that "all those who had entered that Council chamber for their trial were condemned to death: not one was acquitted," except the informant. It is not clear whether that means throughout the duration of the Thirty, or only of this alleged conspiracy.
Seeking, then, to consolidate their power, they sent two of the Thirty (Aristotles and Aeschines) to Sparta to ask Lysander for a garrison to support them, which they promised to pay in order to save Sparta the expense.*** Lysander sent a garrison of 700, commanded by Callibius, who the Thirty proceeded to win over with bribes and flattery. Plutarch gives the example of Autolycus, an athlete who threw Callibius down. Callibius struck him with his staff. At the time, Lysander disapproved, saying that was no way to treat a free man, but the Thirty soon executed Autolycus to gratify Callibius. Keep in mind that to the Greeks, sports were sacred activities, and a Olympian athlete's standing dwarfed even what we give sports stars today. Now imagine what safety anyone else could find under the Thirty.
The Thirty then proceeded to execute any leading politician, even the most conservative, who they saw as a potential threat. Nicias' brother, Eucrates, came from a most conservative political family and was wrongfully arrested over the vandalism of the herms, which cannot have endeared the democracy to him. But when offered a place in the Thirty he indignantly refused and was executed, as was Nicias' son, Niceratus. Other victims named included Antiphon, who supplied the city with two rapid warships, and Leon of Salamis (hold onto that name). Needing money to pay the Spartan garrison, Theognis and Peison, members of the Thirty, proposed executing wealthy metics on false charges to seize their property. They proposed to kill ten, including two poor people to disguise their intent (Lysias), or one each (Xenophon), or two each (Diodorus).
We have information on two of such arrests. Lysias, later a professional speech writer, was a wealthy metic whose family had a shield factory. Peison and others of the Thirty showed up in person to make the arrest, accompanied by their retainers, of course. Lysias bribed Peison into letting him go. Peison did not dare release him at once because others of the Thirty showed up, but took him to a house for holding, where Theognis was guarding others. Lysias asked the owner to bribe him as well and, while he was distracted, slipped out an unlocked back door and fled. His brother was less fortunate; he was arrested in the street, executed without trial (by hemlock), and denied even a cloak for his funeral. The Thirty took even his wife's earrings.
As for Leon, the Thirty summoned five men, including Socrates and ordered them to arrest him, in order to force as many to be their accomplices as possible. The other four proceeded; Socrates returned home. The Thirty gave many such orders, wishing for as many accomplices as possible in their crimes. This is not the only mention we have of Leon. Andocides in a later speech attempts to discredit his accuser by pointing out that he took part in the arrest of Leon and his therefore responsible for his execution without trial. Theramenes names him, along with the son of Nicias as "men of worth and standing" who should not have been executed.
This had led to a certain curiosity about who Leon of Salamis was. The journalist I.F. Stone, in his Trial of Socrates (p. 113) simply assumes that he was a wealthy metic, like Lysias. I assume that the reasons for his assumption are (1) "of Salamis" implies a foreign origin, (2) the absence of a trial implies a non-citizen, and (3) Stone is eager to portray all of Athens' aristocracy as supporting the Thirty. And certainly killing a metic who had done no wrong simply for his money was an injustice and would have been recognized by the Athenians as such. Socrates might boast of his refusal to arrest a metic as proof of his commitment to justice or Andocides hold out the wrongful arrest of a metic as something to discredit his accuser. But it seems unlikely that Theramenes would have named a metic as on a par with the son of Nicias. To be named along with Nicias' family implies a citizen, and a prominent one at that. And Salamis was an island just off the coast of Athens, under Athens' control since Solon's time. A citizen could certainly have been of Salamis. All the historian emphasize the wealth and prominence of the Thirty's victims. This has led modern historians to speculate that he may have been the admiral who commanded during the war, rallied the fleet against the oligarchic coup in 411 BC, was elected after Alcibides was deposed, and was last seen with Conon, trapped at Lesbos. The speculation was that he was on one of the two ships that tried to carry the message to Athens but was captured and repatriated after the war.
Theramenes, though originally a supporter of Critias and his measures increasingly began to protest, saying that it was not reasonable to execute politicians who were not populists simply because they were popular. Critias answered that anyone who was popular was dangerous because he was a possible source of leadership for people who opposed the Thirty. But it became increasingly clear that even if the Thirty eliminated any outsider who might offer leadership to their opponents, a new potential leader of their enemies was arising -- Theramenes himself. Critias and the rest tried at first to conciliate him by proposing a citizen body of 3000. They then kept postponing listing the names. To Theramenes, this must have looked like history repeating itself. Recall that at the time of 400, they had promised to create a larger citizen body with 5000 eligible participants, but kept postponing it, wanting all power to remain with the 400.
While historians generally agree that the 5000 were not meant literally and ultimately meant all men of hoplite status or higher, the 3000 appear to have been meant quite literally, and to have consisted of (most of) the cavalry and some hoplites selected as politically reliable. Theramenes protested that there was no way to limit worthy participants to any fixed number. As with the 400, the Thirty postponed publishing their list of the 3000 and kept changing who was on it to keep the people in suspense. It is pure speculation on my party, but this leads me to suspect that when the Thirty sent out citizen's posses to make arrests, like the one that Socrates was on, there may have been a carrot at work as well as a stick. They may have been offering hoplites a chance to "earn" their citizenship, or watching their reaction to see who to admit.
Theramenes also protested that the Thirty were trying to do two contrary things -- to build their government on force, and to make the rulers weaker than the ruled. The rule based on force is straightforward enough. I never understood what he meant by saying that the rulers were weaker than the ruled. But I am inclined to think that George Grote (p. 466) gets it right, saying that he meant that the rulers were outnumbered by an armed and angry populace. The Thirty resolved that latter problem in much the same way as Pisistratus over a century earlier. They called out the soldiers for review, taking care to assemble all the ones on their short list in the agora and to scatter the rest. When they set down their arms and went to eat, the Spartan garrison and the 3000 gathered them up and took them to the temple. The Thirty introduced a law to the Council "with orders to pass," allowing anyone not on the list of the 3000 to be executed without trial on the orders of the Thirty.
The Thirty then summoned the Council and had young men noted for their audacity present, with hidden daggers. Critias accused Theramenes before the Council of being a danger to their government. He minced no words. If their government was violent, well, you can't make omelets without breaking eggs. The common people would not agree to their form of government; it must therefore be imposed by force. Theramens opposed the oligarchy, let him suffer the consequences. He mocked Theramenes for his willingness to change sides, trying to please both oligarchs and democrats and only showing that he could be trusted by neither. Theramenes replied, making clear that he approved the first wave of executions but not of executing respectable citizens, of killing metics for their wealth, of disarming the citizenry or imposing a foreign garrison. He denounced these things, not so much on moral grounds (morality obviously meant nothing to Critias), but as making needless enemies. And he said that while he might be accused of favoring both sides, Critias favored neither, offending the common people under the democracy and the aristocracy under the oligarchy. That sounds very much like an accusation (probably accurate) of aspiring to be a one-man dictator. The Council applauded, and Theramenes was clearly going to be acquitted. Critias and the others then summoned their bully-boys, and Critias declared that since anyone not on the list of the 3000 could be executed without trial on the orders of the Thirty, he was excommunicating Theramenes from the citizen body and sentencing him to death. Theramenes seized the hearth, (all hearths were sacred to Hestia and therefore sanctuary), warning the Council that if the Thirty could deal so arbitrarily with one of their own, then none of them were safe, and saying that he did not expect Critias to respect sanctuary, but wanted to force him to incur the wrath of the gods. And, indeed, the Eleven dragged Theramenes from sanctuary. The Council, intimidated by the bully boys, dared not intervene. Theramenes drank his hemlock as a toast, in poison, to Critias.
Aristotle, incidentally, gives events in a different sequence, saying that the disarmament of the citizens and introduction of the garrison happened after Theramenes was executed, and that the pretext for removing him from the 3000 was a new law barring from citizenship anyone who opposed the 400.
All sources agree that the execution of Theramenes removed the last constraint on the Thirty. They evicted everyone not on the list of the 3000 from the city proper. Many fled to the countryside, or to the Piraeus (the outlying port), but they were not even safe there, as many were driven from their lands so that the Thirty could seize them, or evicted from the Piraeus. Refugees streamed from Athens. The Spartans forbade receiving any Athenians exiles and ordered them to be delivered up to the Thirty, imposing a five-talent fine on any city that disobeyed. Smaller states obeyed, but the Argives defied them, as did the Thebans (who had only recently favored turning Athens into pasture and selling its people as slaves). Aristotle estimates the total number of executions at 1500, a figure also given by the orator Isocrates, who also estimates that some 5,000 fled. Diodorus, with obvious exaggeration, says that half the citizens fled.
Next: Reflections on the Thirty
______________________________________
*Presumably counted among the youth that Socrates "corrupted."
**I actually got a whole new perspective on this famous poem from a speech by, of all people Julius Caesar. Originally I had simply thought of it as a warning that freedom is indivisible, that if you ignore wrongs done to others, others will ignore wrongs done to you. Later, when Jonah Goldberg war arguing that Hitler was a left-winger, this poem was an obvious refutation, showing how his victims marched a steady stream from left to right, from Communists to Socialists, to unions to Jews to Catholics. Bur reading Caesar's speech arguing that even the worst offenders should not be executed without trial, I realized it had another significance. The Communists were not very sympathetic victims to most Germans. Many were no doubt not merely indifferent but glad to seem them dragged away.
***Aristotle sets the arrival of the garrison later, after a revolt had begun. In this he appears either to be confusing the arrival of the garrison with a later request for aid or (my version suggests) whitewashing Theramenes by post-dating most of the Thirty's worst atrocities to after his execution.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Critias, Leader of the Thirty
Finally, there was Critias, leader of the Thirty. How I wish Plutarch had written his biography! He might fairly be compared to Sulla. Both overthrew a democracy and launched a bloody killing of their rivals and potential rivals. In neither case did the government they established last for long. While Sulla appears to have wanted a narrow and tight oligarchy but actually established a dictatorship which he seems to have intended only as a short-term necessity to achieve his goal, Critias established an extremely narrow, extremely tight oligarchy but would almost certainly have preferred a dictatorship if he could have gotten away with it.
Perhaps Plutarch declined to write a biography of Critias because he did not want to write about a straight-up villain. Yet he included both Sulla and Lysander, who certainly rated as villains in most people's eye. Maybe he thought that their military achievements made Sulla and Lysander somewhat more than simple villains. But Critias, too, had his own achievements that mark him as more than a simple villain, although those achievements were more intellectual than military. My main source on him is the International Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which calls him a "philosopher, rhetorician, poet, historian, and political leader" and seeks to piece together his views from the few surviving fragments of his work, linked here, and from what other ancient sources have said about him. I have accessed at least a few of those sources by Perseus and Google.
Critias came from one of Athens' most distinguished families, a descendent of Solon's brother and of cousin of Plato.* His father's name was Callaeschrus. He was a pupil of Socrates, indeed, when Socrates was accused of "corrupting the youth of Athens," it was almost certainly Critias who was at the top of their list,** although Critias would appear to have been only about ten years younger than Socrates.
Critias appears as a character in several of Plato's dialogues. In Protagoras he speaks only briefly, urging the principles to continue their discussion and the listeners not to take sides. He does not appear in the Republic, but in Timaeus, he announces that he was present during the Republic and that the ideal society Plato outlines bears a remarkable resemblance to one that his great-grandfather Dropides told him the Egyptians described to Solon as the most ancient form of government in Athens. The dialogue then goes on to feature Timaeus giving an account of the creation of the world, with a promise to get back to Critias and his ideal society in the next dialogue. Indeed, the next dialogue, aptly named Critias, is supposed to be Critias' account of this society, but most of it is lost; it breaks off in the middle of his account of the wealth and splendor of the lost society of Atlantis and does not get to either Athens or any purported social order. (It should go without saying that this is pure fiction, intended solely to give Plato's imaginary ideal society in the Republic some real-world credibility).
Finally, there is the Charmides, named for Critias' cousin Charmides, who would later serve under the Thirty as one of the Ten in charge of the port. This dialogue is probably the one that features Critias the most. We meet Charmides, a youth of such stunning beauty that all present, even Socrates, are stricken with lust for him, and when Socrates catches a glimpse beneath his garments, he nearly loses his self-control. Everyone assures Socrates that Charmides is as temperate as he is beautiful, so Socrates re-asserts his self-control by beginning a philosophical dialogue on the nature of temperance. He quickly demolishes the young and inexperienced Charmides' definitions (specifically, that temperance is minding one's own business, an idea he got from Critias). The more sophisticated Critias therefore steps up and gives Socrates quite a run for his his money. They soon wander off into a discussion of whether there can be knowledge of knowledge itself, and I can only say that the ensuing dialogue may be fascinating to professional philosophers, but to an Enlightened Layperson like me, it is mostly incomprehensible. Presumably, though, it can be taken to mean that Plato had great regard for Critias as a philosopher and saw him as one of the few who could actually go toe-to-toe with the master and not be completely demolished.
As for his intellectual achievements, the Encyclopedia comments that few other classical Greek writers present such a breadth of literary output. He wrote poetry, plays, homilies and aphorisms, speeches, and accounts of various city-states in poetry and prose. The article believes that he was too much of a generalist to be much of an original thinker, but that he made a significant contribution to philosophy in being the first to clearly articulate a distinction between perception by the senses and understanding by the mind. It speculates that he may have been the first to write philosophical dialogues (a form many of Socrates' pupils did) and that he may have been the first to write a politeia (combined history, civics and anthropology) of individuals cities. Certainly he wrote politeias of Sparta, Athens, Thessaly, and probably others. He was highly admiring of Sparta, although the few fragments of his work that remain address mostly drinking customs and drinking cups. As for Athens, he was presumably critical of the democracy. At least one Athenian politeia that his critical of the democracy survives. Once attributed to Xenophon, it gives signs of having been written at a time when Xenophon was a mere child.*** One possibility is that it was by Critias. If so, it may be his sole surviving work. He also wrote poetry and plays and speeches. His speeches are described as not high-flown or ornate, but but concise, vigorous, and appropriate to the occasion. (The speeches Xenophon attributes to Critias are said to mirror his style well).
It his his moral and social philosophy that are disturbing. These main surviving example of these are the fragment of his play, Sisyphus. It dismisses gods as a mere invention to make people believe that their most secret deeds will still be observed. Of course, since this is a quote from a play, and one about a legendarily impious man, it is fair to ask whether the playwright endorses this view. The Encyclopedia believes that it is supported by his other fragments, as well as by the conduct in his life. It concludes from this that he believed a wise and learned man could rise above law, religion and morality.
As for Critias' life before joining the Thirty, aside from his intellectual attainments, our knowledge is sparse. Thucydides never so much as mentions him, nor does Xenophon before his entry as one of the Thirty, which presumably means he never had a military command of any importance. A Critias is mentioned as a cousin of Andocides, and as being wrongfully arrested in connection with the mutilation of the herms, but released on Andocides' testimony. All modern historians I have read assume that this was the Critias. If so, the episode must have strengthened his disdain for the democracy.
His actions during the oligarchy of the 400 are unknown. A Callaeschrus is tantalizingly named among the 400 and may have been Critias' father, but we have no further information on the subject. But there are two strong clues that he was not among the 400. First, once they were overthrown it was Critias who made to motion to recall Alcibiades (and commemorated it in a poem). The fact that he was still in Athens after the 400 were overthrown shows that he was not one of the hard line faction. Second, the Thirty later passed a law denying citizenship to anyone who acted against the 400 or demolished their fort. This excluded Theramenes but presumably not Critias and would be incompatible with his belonging to the moderate faction. Under the restored democracy he posthumously prosecuted Phrynicus, one of the leaders of the 400, for treason. (Usual caveat about no way to be sure this was the Critias).
Some time between the overthrow of the 400 (411 BC) and the trial of the generals (406 BC), Critias fled to Thessaly under unknown circumstances, probably related to the disgrace of Alcibiades. There, Xenophon says, he "got among men who put lawlessness before justice," and there that he went wrong. Thermanes added the detail that he spent his time there "establishing a democracy in Thessaly along with Prometheus, and arming the serfs against their masters." Under the oligarchy of the Thirty, this was a serious accusation. No details are known.
This then, is what we know or can conjecture about Critias before his return. I will conclude with a quote from the Cartoon History of the Universe (page 340) in which Socrates tells Critias, "The ideal state, Critias, my boy, is run by philosophers and defended by brainwashed boys trained only to obey." There is no evidence whatever that Socrates held this view, but it is not too unfair a caricature of Plato's Republic. So, when Critias, whose intellectual attainments we have seen, returned backed by a Spartan garrison, the author has Socrates say, "This could be it!" After all, in Critias they appeared to have their philosopher king, and in the Spartan garrison they definitely had their brainwashed boys trained only to obey.
Next we will see how that turned out.
________________________________________
*This information appears to be from Plato who does, indeed, identify Critias as the great-grandson of Dropides, a "relative" (not necessarily brother) of Solon, but most people suspect that either he was skipping generations, or that the Critias in question was the Critias' grandfather.
**Alcibiades was a close second.
***It strongly links democracy to naval power and discussed the immense advantage a naval power has in mobility, since a prolonged overland march is impractical. This dates it to some time before 424, when Brasidas successfully undertook just such a march. Xenophon is estimated to have been about five years old at the time.
Perhaps Plutarch declined to write a biography of Critias because he did not want to write about a straight-up villain. Yet he included both Sulla and Lysander, who certainly rated as villains in most people's eye. Maybe he thought that their military achievements made Sulla and Lysander somewhat more than simple villains. But Critias, too, had his own achievements that mark him as more than a simple villain, although those achievements were more intellectual than military. My main source on him is the International Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which calls him a "philosopher, rhetorician, poet, historian, and political leader" and seeks to piece together his views from the few surviving fragments of his work, linked here, and from what other ancient sources have said about him. I have accessed at least a few of those sources by Perseus and Google.
Critias came from one of Athens' most distinguished families, a descendent of Solon's brother and of cousin of Plato.* His father's name was Callaeschrus. He was a pupil of Socrates, indeed, when Socrates was accused of "corrupting the youth of Athens," it was almost certainly Critias who was at the top of their list,** although Critias would appear to have been only about ten years younger than Socrates.
Critias appears as a character in several of Plato's dialogues. In Protagoras he speaks only briefly, urging the principles to continue their discussion and the listeners not to take sides. He does not appear in the Republic, but in Timaeus, he announces that he was present during the Republic and that the ideal society Plato outlines bears a remarkable resemblance to one that his great-grandfather Dropides told him the Egyptians described to Solon as the most ancient form of government in Athens. The dialogue then goes on to feature Timaeus giving an account of the creation of the world, with a promise to get back to Critias and his ideal society in the next dialogue. Indeed, the next dialogue, aptly named Critias, is supposed to be Critias' account of this society, but most of it is lost; it breaks off in the middle of his account of the wealth and splendor of the lost society of Atlantis and does not get to either Athens or any purported social order. (It should go without saying that this is pure fiction, intended solely to give Plato's imaginary ideal society in the Republic some real-world credibility).
Finally, there is the Charmides, named for Critias' cousin Charmides, who would later serve under the Thirty as one of the Ten in charge of the port. This dialogue is probably the one that features Critias the most. We meet Charmides, a youth of such stunning beauty that all present, even Socrates, are stricken with lust for him, and when Socrates catches a glimpse beneath his garments, he nearly loses his self-control. Everyone assures Socrates that Charmides is as temperate as he is beautiful, so Socrates re-asserts his self-control by beginning a philosophical dialogue on the nature of temperance. He quickly demolishes the young and inexperienced Charmides' definitions (specifically, that temperance is minding one's own business, an idea he got from Critias). The more sophisticated Critias therefore steps up and gives Socrates quite a run for his his money. They soon wander off into a discussion of whether there can be knowledge of knowledge itself, and I can only say that the ensuing dialogue may be fascinating to professional philosophers, but to an Enlightened Layperson like me, it is mostly incomprehensible. Presumably, though, it can be taken to mean that Plato had great regard for Critias as a philosopher and saw him as one of the few who could actually go toe-to-toe with the master and not be completely demolished.
As for his intellectual achievements, the Encyclopedia comments that few other classical Greek writers present such a breadth of literary output. He wrote poetry, plays, homilies and aphorisms, speeches, and accounts of various city-states in poetry and prose. The article believes that he was too much of a generalist to be much of an original thinker, but that he made a significant contribution to philosophy in being the first to clearly articulate a distinction between perception by the senses and understanding by the mind. It speculates that he may have been the first to write philosophical dialogues (a form many of Socrates' pupils did) and that he may have been the first to write a politeia (combined history, civics and anthropology) of individuals cities. Certainly he wrote politeias of Sparta, Athens, Thessaly, and probably others. He was highly admiring of Sparta, although the few fragments of his work that remain address mostly drinking customs and drinking cups. As for Athens, he was presumably critical of the democracy. At least one Athenian politeia that his critical of the democracy survives. Once attributed to Xenophon, it gives signs of having been written at a time when Xenophon was a mere child.*** One possibility is that it was by Critias. If so, it may be his sole surviving work. He also wrote poetry and plays and speeches. His speeches are described as not high-flown or ornate, but but concise, vigorous, and appropriate to the occasion. (The speeches Xenophon attributes to Critias are said to mirror his style well).
It his his moral and social philosophy that are disturbing. These main surviving example of these are the fragment of his play, Sisyphus. It dismisses gods as a mere invention to make people believe that their most secret deeds will still be observed. Of course, since this is a quote from a play, and one about a legendarily impious man, it is fair to ask whether the playwright endorses this view. The Encyclopedia believes that it is supported by his other fragments, as well as by the conduct in his life. It concludes from this that he believed a wise and learned man could rise above law, religion and morality.
As for Critias' life before joining the Thirty, aside from his intellectual attainments, our knowledge is sparse. Thucydides never so much as mentions him, nor does Xenophon before his entry as one of the Thirty, which presumably means he never had a military command of any importance. A Critias is mentioned as a cousin of Andocides, and as being wrongfully arrested in connection with the mutilation of the herms, but released on Andocides' testimony. All modern historians I have read assume that this was the Critias. If so, the episode must have strengthened his disdain for the democracy.
His actions during the oligarchy of the 400 are unknown. A Callaeschrus is tantalizingly named among the 400 and may have been Critias' father, but we have no further information on the subject. But there are two strong clues that he was not among the 400. First, once they were overthrown it was Critias who made to motion to recall Alcibiades (and commemorated it in a poem). The fact that he was still in Athens after the 400 were overthrown shows that he was not one of the hard line faction. Second, the Thirty later passed a law denying citizenship to anyone who acted against the 400 or demolished their fort. This excluded Theramenes but presumably not Critias and would be incompatible with his belonging to the moderate faction. Under the restored democracy he posthumously prosecuted Phrynicus, one of the leaders of the 400, for treason. (Usual caveat about no way to be sure this was the Critias).
Some time between the overthrow of the 400 (411 BC) and the trial of the generals (406 BC), Critias fled to Thessaly under unknown circumstances, probably related to the disgrace of Alcibiades. There, Xenophon says, he "got among men who put lawlessness before justice," and there that he went wrong. Thermanes added the detail that he spent his time there "establishing a democracy in Thessaly along with Prometheus, and arming the serfs against their masters." Under the oligarchy of the Thirty, this was a serious accusation. No details are known.
This then, is what we know or can conjecture about Critias before his return. I will conclude with a quote from the Cartoon History of the Universe (page 340) in which Socrates tells Critias, "The ideal state, Critias, my boy, is run by philosophers and defended by brainwashed boys trained only to obey." There is no evidence whatever that Socrates held this view, but it is not too unfair a caricature of Plato's Republic. So, when Critias, whose intellectual attainments we have seen, returned backed by a Spartan garrison, the author has Socrates say, "This could be it!" After all, in Critias they appeared to have their philosopher king, and in the Spartan garrison they definitely had their brainwashed boys trained only to obey.
Next we will see how that turned out.
________________________________________
*This information appears to be from Plato who does, indeed, identify Critias as the great-grandson of Dropides, a "relative" (not necessarily brother) of Solon, but most people suspect that either he was skipping generations, or that the Critias in question was the Critias' grandfather.
**Alcibiades was a close second.
***It strongly links democracy to naval power and discussed the immense advantage a naval power has in mobility, since a prolonged overland march is impractical. This dates it to some time before 424, when Brasidas successfully undertook just such a march. Xenophon is estimated to have been about five years old at the time.
The Thirty Tyrants
Athens' government was then turned over to thirty men. Many, though not all, had taken part in the coup by the Four Hundred, fled into exile, and been returned as a result of the peace. Xenophon gives a full list of their names:
Theramenes
Clearly at the time they took power, Theramenes would have been the most eminent and the best known to his countrymen. Theramenes had a distinguished father, Hagnon, founder of the colony of Amphipolis. Thucydides calls him "a good speaker." Indeed, he as been described as a distinguished orator and teacher of the later orator Isocrates. He was one of the Four Hundred who overthrew the democracy, as was his father. His role in overthrowing the oligarchy and restoring the democracy, winning important naval victories, and negotiating the peace with Sparta have already been discussed. Athenians would probably have assumed that he was the leader of the Thirty.
Chremon
While most of the Thirty were returning exiles from the hardcore wing of the 400, Theramenes was not the only exception. Chremon was serving in the Council before Athens surrendered and arranged to have Cleophon tried by the Council instead of by a jury in the interests of removing an obstacle to peace* and arranging the arrest of Strombichides as another obstacle. Chremon went on to serve in the Thirty while his colleague in these actions, Satyrus, who Lysias incorrectly names as another of the Thirty, was leader of the Eleven, i.e., the executions of the Thirty. Xenophon describes him as the "most audacious and shameless" of the executioners.
Dracontides
Aristotle and Lysias both confirm that it was Dracontides who prepared the resolution to the Assembly instituting the Thirty. Neither says whether he had been in exile before, but it seems unlikely that they would have given a role like this, intended for keeping up appearances, to a newly returned exile.
Charicles
Once an ardent democrat, Charicles ranked with Peisander as the worst witch hunters when the herms were mutilated, insisting that it was not the work of a small criminal clique, but an attempt to overthrow the democracy. The two of them were in large part responsible for scope of moral panic that followed and no doubt alienated many from the democracy. Tantalizingly, Thucydides speaks of a general/admiral by that name soon after Alcibiades defected who was sent to Argos to recruit fighters and who established a base in Laconia and then sailed home, leaving it in the hands of the Argives. (The base was abandoned as unaffordable after the Syracusan disaster). Was this the same Charicles? Given that most leading politicians of the time were also military commanders, it seems most likely. I found nothing on his role in the Four Hundred or whether he was exiled.
Onomocles
Thucydides mentions a general/admiral by this name. He was in the force that besieged Miletus, but later withdrew to Samos. He is last seen sailing against Chios. We hear nothing further of his career, or whether he took part in the coup. Certainly the commanders at Samos in general joined the conspiracy, but we do not know if Onomocles was still one of them. In short, it seems likely but by no means certain that he was among the commanders who staged the 411 BC coup and went into exile afterward.
Sophocles
This was not the tragic playwright, of course, who died shortly before the war ended. Thucydides mentions a general named Sophocles who served circa 426-424 BC.** This Sophocles was ordered to Sicily (in 426-425 BC, ten years before the major and disastrous invasion) but was delayed by storm and instead took part in the brilliant capture of Pylos. Sent to Sicily again the next year, he stopped at Corcyra just as the oligarchic faction was defeated and agreed to be taken to Athens. However, they were caught trying to escape, so Sophocles handed them over to the democrats to be slaughtered. Thucydides blames him for encouraging the democrats by making clear that he did not want to be bothered with transporting the prisoners. He was sent to Sicily to intervene in a war there. Wanting to avoid such intervention, the parties ended the war, so there were no grounds for intervention. Sophocles was put on trial for being bought off and exiled (424 BC). This could be the Sophocles who was one of the Thirty. Certainly his exile would not have made him fond of the democracy, and his brutal dealings with the oligarchs on Corcyra would not preclude him later being equally brutal with democrats. But I am inclined to think that the Sophocles of the Thirty was a different Sophocles simply because this one had been out of action for twenty years by the time the Thirty took over.
Aristotles
A Charmides, son of Aristotles was falsely accused of vandalizing the herms.*** Charmides appears to be the one who convinced Andocides to come clean about what he knew. We have no way of knowing whether this Aristotles was the father of that same Charmides although, if so, his son's unjust arrest cannot have endeared the democracy to him. We do know that he was one of the hard line faction of the 400, who was prepared to build a fort to be turned over to the Spartans in order to preserve their power, and who Theramenes thwarted. As such, he would necessarily have gone into exile when the 400 were overthrown. Indeed, he was with Lysander when Theramenes attempted to negotiate with him. It was Aristotles Lysander sent to report on the negotiations to the Ephors.
Esratosthenes
He was a ship captain in the Hellespont at the time the 400 staged their coup. Upon learning of the coup he deserted (presumably after he failed to win his crew over to it). He had been in exile ever since.
Critias
Critias, it would soon become apparent, was the real leader of the Thirty. Our information about him before that is limited, but he was important enough to deserve an entire post of his own.
UPDATE:
Melobius
Aristotle says that when the 400 seized power in 411 B.C., a Melobius was the main speaker on behalf of the resolution that allowed the 400 to draw up their constitution. Nothing further is known about his role under the 400. It seems most likely that he was of the hard line faction that went into exile, and most likely that this is the same Melobius who was one of the Thirty. But it is not certain. When Lysias was arrested, Melobius took part in the inspection of his shield factory. He even stole the earrings out of the ears of Lysias' brother's wife.
MnesilochusA Mnesilochus served as archon under the 400. Once again, it seems most likely, though by no means certain, that Mnesilochus the archon went into exile when the 400 were overthrown and was one of the Thirty.
_____________________________________
*It is clear from this speech that Cleophon was a highly controversial figure, even among democrats.
**Sophocles son of Sostratides, and thus not the same as the tragic playwright, who was Sophocles son of Sophilus.
***Not the same Charmides who appears in Plato and held office under the Thirty. That was Charmides son of Glaucon.
Polychares, Critias, Melobius, Hippolochus, Eucleides, Hieron, Mnesilochus, Chremon, Theramenes, Aresias, Diocles, Phaedrias, Chaereleos, Anaetius, Peison, Sophocles, Eratosthenes, Charicles, Onomacles, Theognis, Aeschines, Theogenes, Cleomedes, Erasistratus, Pheidon, Dracontides, Eumathes, Aristoteles, Hippomachus, Mnesitheides.One serious classical scholar has apparently written a book on them. I was not able to access his book. Doing what research I could as a mere Enlightened Layperson, using the Perseus Digital Library, and accepting guidance from Grote, Kagan, Wikipedia, and Google, I came up with a complete blank for about half of them. For others, I came up with only the barest minimum of information, discussing their actions under the Thirty, such as Mnesitheides took part in the arrest of Lysias and inspected his shield factory. Still, a little background information can be gleaned about a few of the Thirty, and at least some conjecture is possible about others.
Theramenes
Clearly at the time they took power, Theramenes would have been the most eminent and the best known to his countrymen. Theramenes had a distinguished father, Hagnon, founder of the colony of Amphipolis. Thucydides calls him "a good speaker." Indeed, he as been described as a distinguished orator and teacher of the later orator Isocrates. He was one of the Four Hundred who overthrew the democracy, as was his father. His role in overthrowing the oligarchy and restoring the democracy, winning important naval victories, and negotiating the peace with Sparta have already been discussed. Athenians would probably have assumed that he was the leader of the Thirty.
Chremon
While most of the Thirty were returning exiles from the hardcore wing of the 400, Theramenes was not the only exception. Chremon was serving in the Council before Athens surrendered and arranged to have Cleophon tried by the Council instead of by a jury in the interests of removing an obstacle to peace* and arranging the arrest of Strombichides as another obstacle. Chremon went on to serve in the Thirty while his colleague in these actions, Satyrus, who Lysias incorrectly names as another of the Thirty, was leader of the Eleven, i.e., the executions of the Thirty. Xenophon describes him as the "most audacious and shameless" of the executioners.
Dracontides
Aristotle and Lysias both confirm that it was Dracontides who prepared the resolution to the Assembly instituting the Thirty. Neither says whether he had been in exile before, but it seems unlikely that they would have given a role like this, intended for keeping up appearances, to a newly returned exile.
Charicles
Once an ardent democrat, Charicles ranked with Peisander as the worst witch hunters when the herms were mutilated, insisting that it was not the work of a small criminal clique, but an attempt to overthrow the democracy. The two of them were in large part responsible for scope of moral panic that followed and no doubt alienated many from the democracy. Tantalizingly, Thucydides speaks of a general/admiral by that name soon after Alcibiades defected who was sent to Argos to recruit fighters and who established a base in Laconia and then sailed home, leaving it in the hands of the Argives. (The base was abandoned as unaffordable after the Syracusan disaster). Was this the same Charicles? Given that most leading politicians of the time were also military commanders, it seems most likely. I found nothing on his role in the Four Hundred or whether he was exiled.
Onomocles
Thucydides mentions a general/admiral by this name. He was in the force that besieged Miletus, but later withdrew to Samos. He is last seen sailing against Chios. We hear nothing further of his career, or whether he took part in the coup. Certainly the commanders at Samos in general joined the conspiracy, but we do not know if Onomocles was still one of them. In short, it seems likely but by no means certain that he was among the commanders who staged the 411 BC coup and went into exile afterward.
Sophocles
This was not the tragic playwright, of course, who died shortly before the war ended. Thucydides mentions a general named Sophocles who served circa 426-424 BC.** This Sophocles was ordered to Sicily (in 426-425 BC, ten years before the major and disastrous invasion) but was delayed by storm and instead took part in the brilliant capture of Pylos. Sent to Sicily again the next year, he stopped at Corcyra just as the oligarchic faction was defeated and agreed to be taken to Athens. However, they were caught trying to escape, so Sophocles handed them over to the democrats to be slaughtered. Thucydides blames him for encouraging the democrats by making clear that he did not want to be bothered with transporting the prisoners. He was sent to Sicily to intervene in a war there. Wanting to avoid such intervention, the parties ended the war, so there were no grounds for intervention. Sophocles was put on trial for being bought off and exiled (424 BC). This could be the Sophocles who was one of the Thirty. Certainly his exile would not have made him fond of the democracy, and his brutal dealings with the oligarchs on Corcyra would not preclude him later being equally brutal with democrats. But I am inclined to think that the Sophocles of the Thirty was a different Sophocles simply because this one had been out of action for twenty years by the time the Thirty took over.
Aristotles
A Charmides, son of Aristotles was falsely accused of vandalizing the herms.*** Charmides appears to be the one who convinced Andocides to come clean about what he knew. We have no way of knowing whether this Aristotles was the father of that same Charmides although, if so, his son's unjust arrest cannot have endeared the democracy to him. We do know that he was one of the hard line faction of the 400, who was prepared to build a fort to be turned over to the Spartans in order to preserve their power, and who Theramenes thwarted. As such, he would necessarily have gone into exile when the 400 were overthrown. Indeed, he was with Lysander when Theramenes attempted to negotiate with him. It was Aristotles Lysander sent to report on the negotiations to the Ephors.
Esratosthenes
He was a ship captain in the Hellespont at the time the 400 staged their coup. Upon learning of the coup he deserted (presumably after he failed to win his crew over to it). He had been in exile ever since.
Critias
Critias, it would soon become apparent, was the real leader of the Thirty. Our information about him before that is limited, but he was important enough to deserve an entire post of his own.
UPDATE:
Melobius
Aristotle says that when the 400 seized power in 411 B.C., a Melobius was the main speaker on behalf of the resolution that allowed the 400 to draw up their constitution. Nothing further is known about his role under the 400. It seems most likely that he was of the hard line faction that went into exile, and most likely that this is the same Melobius who was one of the Thirty. But it is not certain. When Lysias was arrested, Melobius took part in the inspection of his shield factory. He even stole the earrings out of the ears of Lysias' brother's wife.
MnesilochusA Mnesilochus served as archon under the 400. Once again, it seems most likely, though by no means certain, that Mnesilochus the archon went into exile when the 400 were overthrown and was one of the Thirty.
_____________________________________
*It is clear from this speech that Cleophon was a highly controversial figure, even among democrats.
**Sophocles son of Sostratides, and thus not the same as the tragic playwright, who was Sophocles son of Sophilus.
***Not the same Charmides who appears in Plato and held office under the Thirty. That was Charmides son of Glaucon.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Athens: Government Turned Over to the Thirty
What does one call a government which concentrates all power in the hands of thirty men? It is too small to be an oligarchy, even an extremely narrow and tight one. But it is too large to be a junta by any reasonable definition. The juntas that Lysander installed elsewhere consisted of ten men and were called decarchies (governments of ten). The government he installed in Athens appears to have been essentially the same, except with thirty men instead of ten. What is Greek for thirty? According to this link (on modern Greek), the answer is trianda. So for the lack of a better term, I will refer to the government as a triandarchy (government of thirty). The ancients called them the Thirty Tyrants, or just the Thirty. I will probably use those terms, too.
Athenian democracy did not survive defeat for long. The coup and government of thirty that followed are extremely well documented, perhaps better documented than any other event in Ancient Athens. As such they require parsing of different and sometimes contradictory sources. Classical historians emphasize the government as a Spartan imposition, while Athenian speech writers, prosecuting or defending fellow countrymen, emphasize the domestic intrigue that took place.
After Athens surrendered, Lysander sailed into port, the Long Walls were demolished, and the warships burned, as the Peloponnesians crowned themselves in victor's garlands and female entertainers celebrated with the flute. He probably then departed for Samos to continue the siege, although some sources seem to imply a single stay. Either way, the terms of the peace created an intentional ambiguity. Athens was guaranteed its ancestral government, a term deliberately vague enough that oligarchs and democrats alike could lay claim to it.
The exiles returned, eager for oligarchy and perhaps conspiring in the political "clubs" described earlier. Five men, calling themselves the Ephors after the chief executives in Sparta, apparently directed the conspiracy. The existence of these "ephors" is attested by witnesses, what they did is less clear. Aristotle seems to acknowledge some sort of conspiracy, though he denies that Theramenes had any part in it.
In any event, a meeting of the Assembly was called and Lysander was present under uncertain circumstances. Xenophon appears to date it before the Sparta forces were withdrawn. Diodorus and the speechwriter Lysias* say the oligarchs invited him. Plutarch treats it as a threat when the Athenians delayed in demolishing the walls and the new government was imposed as punishment. Aristotle merely says that he sided with the oligarchs.
What happened at the meeting is also in uncertain. Xenonphon simply says that the Assembly decided to choose thirty men to re-write the laws. He then says that Lysander sailed away to Samos and the king marched the ground forces away, so although he does not directly mention any coercion, coercion can clearly be inferred. The others are less coy. Aristotle says that when Lysander backed the oligarchs, the Assembly was intimidated and approved a decree for oligarchy introduced by Dracontides. Plutarch makes the change part of Lysander's general intimidation and identifies him as responsible for establishing the Thirty and installing a garrison, commanded by the Spartan Callibius.
Diodorus and Lysias give the most detailed accounts. According to Diodorus, it was Lysander who called the Assembly and "advised" the Athenians to choose thirty men to govern. Theramenes spoke out against him, saying that the Athenians were guaranteed their ancestral government. Lysander answered that the Athenians had broken the terms of the peace by delaying in demolishing the walls, and threatened Theramenes' life if he did not comply. Theramenes and the people then yielded, but the people elected Theramenes as one of the Thirty in hopes that he could restrain them.
Lysias' story is different altogether. He blames Theramenes for not sending for Lysander and keeping the Assembly from meeting until he was present. The Spartan commanders then called the Assembly to vote on the change in government, and no one dared oppose them. While it was Drancontides who drew up the new system of government, Theramenes was the one who proposed it to the Assembly. The Assembly raised an uproar, but Theramenes urged them to accept it, saying that many Athenians supported the new system. Lysander told the Athenians that they were in breach of the truce, that accepting the new system was the end of their freedom, but refusing it was the end of their lives. Then no one dared vote no. Some left and some refrained from voting, but all who voted, voted for the new government. The Assembly then elected ten men chosen by Theramenes, ten chosen by the ephors, and ten from among those present.
So who are we to believe? Well, four out of five say that the decision was made under duress, while Xenophon mentions no coercion, but we do not have to read very far between the lines to detect it. It seems safe to assume that the decision was coerced. Plutarch, Diodorus, and Lysias all say that Lysander accused the Athenians of breaking the truce by not tearing down the walls in time and threatened them with worse if they did not change their government. That, too, seems a safe assumption, especially since Aristotle is so sparse as not to give any details at all.
Xenophon appears to indicate that the change in government took place immediately after the surrender. Plutarch is hopeless jumbled in his chronology here, but his saying that Lysander "sent word to the people" that their time to demolish the walls had expired also seems to imply that he sailed and then returned. Diodorus and Lysias both say that Lysander had gone, the conspiracy had time to ripen, and that he then returned. Aristotle, again, is hopelessly sparse. Going with the general rule that the most detailed account is probably most accurate, I would once again lean in favor of saying that he sailed and returned.
Finally, and this will come up a lot, Theramenes' role in the Thirty is extremely controversial. Lysias' description of him is an obvious hatchet job, designed at least in part to counter some people's favorable assessment of the man. Diodorus' account, by contrast, reeks of white wash and is simply not credible in light of Theramenes' previous role in the coup by the 400. Aristotle does not have such an obvious stench, but he does try to pass Theramenes off as just another conservative politician, no different than Nicias and preferable to demagogues like Cleon and Cleophon, although he does admit that Theramenes was controversial. He does not lavish praise on Theramenes the way Diodorus does, but he misrepresents events under the Thirty to make Theramenes look good, even eliding over the fact that Theramenes was one of the Thirty at all. Xenophon's account of Theramenes during the trial of the generals is deeply hostile and not plausible. However, his account of Theramenes' conduct under the Thirty seems reasonably fair and balanced, is the most detailed of any source, and is presumably based on Xenophon's own experience, being in Athens at the time. I am therefore inclined to go with Xenophon's account of Theramenes under the Thirty more than any other.
However, I am inclined to trust Lysias on this one. Obviously Lysias would not be privy to the details of the conspiracy, and anything he said about Theramenes' role in it would be pure guess-work. The meeting of the Assembly is a different matter. As a non-citizen, he would not have been present, but he presumably heard about it from citizens, and speaking to a jury of citizens, many of whom were no doubt present or had heard accounts from people who were present, he could hardly have misrepresented such public events too egregiously. His naming of Dracontides as the one who proposed the new system is confirmed by Aristotle. And it seems far more likely that the Thirty had been chosen in advance and the vote for them was a mere facade than, as Diodorus claims, that the people chose Theramenes to be one of the Thirty because they saw him as their champion.
I will concede Diodorus one point here. The Athenians may have looked to Theramenes for leadership at this time. It is hard to say. On the one hand, he took part in the earlier overthrow of the democracy. On the other hand, he also took part in the restoration and won important battles afterward. The Athenians' continued ambivalence is revealed in the final year of the war. After executing six generals and seeing two flee into exile, the Athenians elected Theramenes, then rejected him on examination as politically unreliable. Certainly he would not have been anybody's first choice. But with the 406 B.C. batch of generals except Conon executed, with the 405 B.C. batch of general except Conon killed after their defeat, with Conon choosing exile, after the execution of Cleophon and the arrest of Strombichides and Dionysodorus, Athens was seriously short on leadership. Theramenes had, after all, negotiated the peace -- a peace hardcore nationalists like Cleophon, Strombichides, or Dionysodorus might reject as disgraceful, but one most Athenians must have seen as the only alternative to starvation. And with the fearsome Lysander threatening worse consequences yet again if the government were not changed and Theramenes saying that there truly was no alternative, maybe most Athenians were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Next: Critias and the Thirty.
________________________________________
*Lysias was a metic (resident alien), and as such would not have been present at the Assembly, but he might have learned about what happened from citizens who were present. He was a professional speech writer who wrote many speeches for others to deliver to the Assembly and the jury courts. Many (though by no means all) of these speeches dealt with events under the Thirty. As a ghost writer, he is not necessarily expressing his own opinions. However, the speech these events are drawn from is one that he delivered himself, in prosecuting one of the Thirty for the murder of his brother. As such, we can fairly assume it expresses his own opinions.
Athenian democracy did not survive defeat for long. The coup and government of thirty that followed are extremely well documented, perhaps better documented than any other event in Ancient Athens. As such they require parsing of different and sometimes contradictory sources. Classical historians emphasize the government as a Spartan imposition, while Athenian speech writers, prosecuting or defending fellow countrymen, emphasize the domestic intrigue that took place.
After Athens surrendered, Lysander sailed into port, the Long Walls were demolished, and the warships burned, as the Peloponnesians crowned themselves in victor's garlands and female entertainers celebrated with the flute. He probably then departed for Samos to continue the siege, although some sources seem to imply a single stay. Either way, the terms of the peace created an intentional ambiguity. Athens was guaranteed its ancestral government, a term deliberately vague enough that oligarchs and democrats alike could lay claim to it.
The exiles returned, eager for oligarchy and perhaps conspiring in the political "clubs" described earlier. Five men, calling themselves the Ephors after the chief executives in Sparta, apparently directed the conspiracy. The existence of these "ephors" is attested by witnesses, what they did is less clear. Aristotle seems to acknowledge some sort of conspiracy, though he denies that Theramenes had any part in it.
In any event, a meeting of the Assembly was called and Lysander was present under uncertain circumstances. Xenophon appears to date it before the Sparta forces were withdrawn. Diodorus and the speechwriter Lysias* say the oligarchs invited him. Plutarch treats it as a threat when the Athenians delayed in demolishing the walls and the new government was imposed as punishment. Aristotle merely says that he sided with the oligarchs.
What happened at the meeting is also in uncertain. Xenonphon simply says that the Assembly decided to choose thirty men to re-write the laws. He then says that Lysander sailed away to Samos and the king marched the ground forces away, so although he does not directly mention any coercion, coercion can clearly be inferred. The others are less coy. Aristotle says that when Lysander backed the oligarchs, the Assembly was intimidated and approved a decree for oligarchy introduced by Dracontides. Plutarch makes the change part of Lysander's general intimidation and identifies him as responsible for establishing the Thirty and installing a garrison, commanded by the Spartan Callibius.
Diodorus and Lysias give the most detailed accounts. According to Diodorus, it was Lysander who called the Assembly and "advised" the Athenians to choose thirty men to govern. Theramenes spoke out against him, saying that the Athenians were guaranteed their ancestral government. Lysander answered that the Athenians had broken the terms of the peace by delaying in demolishing the walls, and threatened Theramenes' life if he did not comply. Theramenes and the people then yielded, but the people elected Theramenes as one of the Thirty in hopes that he could restrain them.
Lysias' story is different altogether. He blames Theramenes for not sending for Lysander and keeping the Assembly from meeting until he was present. The Spartan commanders then called the Assembly to vote on the change in government, and no one dared oppose them. While it was Drancontides who drew up the new system of government, Theramenes was the one who proposed it to the Assembly. The Assembly raised an uproar, but Theramenes urged them to accept it, saying that many Athenians supported the new system. Lysander told the Athenians that they were in breach of the truce, that accepting the new system was the end of their freedom, but refusing it was the end of their lives. Then no one dared vote no. Some left and some refrained from voting, but all who voted, voted for the new government. The Assembly then elected ten men chosen by Theramenes, ten chosen by the ephors, and ten from among those present.
So who are we to believe? Well, four out of five say that the decision was made under duress, while Xenophon mentions no coercion, but we do not have to read very far between the lines to detect it. It seems safe to assume that the decision was coerced. Plutarch, Diodorus, and Lysias all say that Lysander accused the Athenians of breaking the truce by not tearing down the walls in time and threatened them with worse if they did not change their government. That, too, seems a safe assumption, especially since Aristotle is so sparse as not to give any details at all.
Xenophon appears to indicate that the change in government took place immediately after the surrender. Plutarch is hopeless jumbled in his chronology here, but his saying that Lysander "sent word to the people" that their time to demolish the walls had expired also seems to imply that he sailed and then returned. Diodorus and Lysias both say that Lysander had gone, the conspiracy had time to ripen, and that he then returned. Aristotle, again, is hopelessly sparse. Going with the general rule that the most detailed account is probably most accurate, I would once again lean in favor of saying that he sailed and returned.
Finally, and this will come up a lot, Theramenes' role in the Thirty is extremely controversial. Lysias' description of him is an obvious hatchet job, designed at least in part to counter some people's favorable assessment of the man. Diodorus' account, by contrast, reeks of white wash and is simply not credible in light of Theramenes' previous role in the coup by the 400. Aristotle does not have such an obvious stench, but he does try to pass Theramenes off as just another conservative politician, no different than Nicias and preferable to demagogues like Cleon and Cleophon, although he does admit that Theramenes was controversial. He does not lavish praise on Theramenes the way Diodorus does, but he misrepresents events under the Thirty to make Theramenes look good, even eliding over the fact that Theramenes was one of the Thirty at all. Xenophon's account of Theramenes during the trial of the generals is deeply hostile and not plausible. However, his account of Theramenes' conduct under the Thirty seems reasonably fair and balanced, is the most detailed of any source, and is presumably based on Xenophon's own experience, being in Athens at the time. I am therefore inclined to go with Xenophon's account of Theramenes under the Thirty more than any other.
However, I am inclined to trust Lysias on this one. Obviously Lysias would not be privy to the details of the conspiracy, and anything he said about Theramenes' role in it would be pure guess-work. The meeting of the Assembly is a different matter. As a non-citizen, he would not have been present, but he presumably heard about it from citizens, and speaking to a jury of citizens, many of whom were no doubt present or had heard accounts from people who were present, he could hardly have misrepresented such public events too egregiously. His naming of Dracontides as the one who proposed the new system is confirmed by Aristotle. And it seems far more likely that the Thirty had been chosen in advance and the vote for them was a mere facade than, as Diodorus claims, that the people chose Theramenes to be one of the Thirty because they saw him as their champion.
I will concede Diodorus one point here. The Athenians may have looked to Theramenes for leadership at this time. It is hard to say. On the one hand, he took part in the earlier overthrow of the democracy. On the other hand, he also took part in the restoration and won important battles afterward. The Athenians' continued ambivalence is revealed in the final year of the war. After executing six generals and seeing two flee into exile, the Athenians elected Theramenes, then rejected him on examination as politically unreliable. Certainly he would not have been anybody's first choice. But with the 406 B.C. batch of generals except Conon executed, with the 405 B.C. batch of general except Conon killed after their defeat, with Conon choosing exile, after the execution of Cleophon and the arrest of Strombichides and Dionysodorus, Athens was seriously short on leadership. Theramenes had, after all, negotiated the peace -- a peace hardcore nationalists like Cleophon, Strombichides, or Dionysodorus might reject as disgraceful, but one most Athenians must have seen as the only alternative to starvation. And with the fearsome Lysander threatening worse consequences yet again if the government were not changed and Theramenes saying that there truly was no alternative, maybe most Athenians were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Next: Critias and the Thirty.
________________________________________
*Lysias was a metic (resident alien), and as such would not have been present at the Assembly, but he might have learned about what happened from citizens who were present. He was a professional speech writer who wrote many speeches for others to deliver to the Assembly and the jury courts. Many (though by no means all) of these speeches dealt with events under the Thirty. As a ghost writer, he is not necessarily expressing his own opinions. However, the speech these events are drawn from is one that he delivered himself, in prosecuting one of the Thirty for the murder of his brother. As such, we can fairly assume it expresses his own opinions.
Athens: History Starts to Rhyme
Remember our old friend Isagoras? No? Quick reminder, then. The Spartans had driven out the tyrants, followed by a standoff between the democratic Athenians led by Cleisthenes and the oligarchs led by Isagoras. Isagoras easily won the support of the Spartan king, Cleomenes, who was having an affair with his wife. (Herodotus doesn't exactly say that Isagoras pimped his wife to Cleomenes as a bribe, but it is easy to infer). Cleomenes set up shop with a Spartan garrison. Isagoras persuaded him to expel Cleisthenes and 700 political rivals, along with their families. But when Isagoras dissolved the Council and attempted to replace it with 300 cronies, even the oligarchs turned against him. A general uprising ensued, and the outnumbered Spartans were soon expelled, along with Isagoras. His followers were massacred.
What about the overthrow of democracy in Argos? No? Quick reminder. The Argives were defeated by Sparta and made peace on what seemed like very reasonable terms. But the terms soon turned out to be a facade, and the Spartans aligned with the elite Argive military forces to establish an oligarchy. It proved short-lived.
Now, remember the old saying that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme? Well, get ready for some heavy-duty rhyming.
What about the overthrow of democracy in Argos? No? Quick reminder. The Argives were defeated by Sparta and made peace on what seemed like very reasonable terms. But the terms soon turned out to be a facade, and the Spartans aligned with the elite Argive military forces to establish an oligarchy. It proved short-lived.
Now, remember the old saying that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme? Well, get ready for some heavy-duty rhyming.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Political and Diplomatic Maneuvering Around Athens' Final Defeat
Athens was still a democracy at the time of its surrender (and shortly after), but confidence in its government had been weakened. In particular, many aristocrats (the cavalry)* had become disillusioned. The Athenian aristocracy, like aristocracies everywhere, flattered itself on its moral superiority. They called themselves "the best citizens," "the good and the true," and so forth, and meant this both in moral terms and in terms of pedigree and wealth. In fact, they probably conflated those things so far as not to distinguish at all. And well we can imagine that younger men in particular were disillusioned. After all, they were not old enough to have seen the democracy's greatest accomplishments -- its victory over the Persians, its liberation of the Asian Greeks, its formation of the Delian League as a mutual defense pact with no imperialist designs. Even the height of Athens' prosperity before the Peloponnesian War, or its seeming invincibility at sea during the early days of the war would have been, at best, vague childhood memories. What they would have seen was the democracy committing frightful atrocities at Melos and Scione, the democracy lured into mad imperialist schemes in Sicily, ending in disaster, the democracy descending into moral panic over the mutilated herms and arresting its leading citizens with no end in sight, the democracy turning the tide of the war, only to refuse peace offers that could put an end to it, the democracy executing generals who had won a miraculous victory without any meaningful trial, and finally the democracy utterly defeated. Many of them must have looked at the mess the democracy had made and concluded that an oligarchy, made up of men like themselves, would do better. If the uninspiring performance of the Four Hundred was not an encouraging example, well, they had an unfinished war on their hands, which the new oligarchy would not. Definite oligarchic sympathies were particularly strong in the Council.
At the same time, there were hardcore populists who could not bring themselves to admit certain cold, hard truths. That the war was lost no one disputed, although many blamed defeat on betrayal, for which there is no evidence. And although the empire was clearly irretrievable, many Athenians vainly hoped to escape any further consequences of defeat and looked with grave suspicion on political maneuvers surrounding the negotiation of terms and later blamed some sort of betrayal there for their later misfortunes. The professional historians give little attention to the political maneuvering that attended Athens' final surrender, seeing it as insignificant to the outcome, given that their navy was destroyed and the city was under blockade and starving. In this they are no doubt right, but these maneuverings may have been signs of a nascent plot to establish an oligarchy if the city survived (a matter decidedly in doubt). They are documented by later speeches eager to find someone to blame and therefore not altogether reliable. But the speeches do give insight into what was happening in Athens during those desperate days.
At some point the Spartans apparently proposed a peace if Athens would demolish the Long Walls connecting the city to its port for the length of ten stadia (about a mile). Archestratus proposed to the Council that they accept and was thrown in prison for it, and such proposals forbidden. The leading instigator in the Assembly against acceptance (and presumably for forbidding and further discussion and imprisoning anyone who suggested it) was our old friend Cleophon, who had previous made himself notable by rejecting peace after Athens first major victory (and possibly the second as well). At this point Theramenes asked to be appointed ambassador, possibly offering to secure better terms. Theramenes remained absent up to three months while conditions in Athens deteriorated, leading many to suspect that he was doing it on purpose to build pressure against Athens, or perhaps conspiring against the democracy. While they waited, the Council decided that Cleophon was an obstacle to peace and arranged to have him tried on dubious charges of deserting his post. But the Council feared a jury would not convict and so Council members Satyrus and Chremon arranged to have him tried by the Council, convicted and executed.
While Theramenes was attempting to negotiate peace with Lysander, the government in Sparta called a meeting of the Peloponnesian League. The mood was ugly. Thebes, Corinth, and various smaller cities opposed any peace and favored destroying Athens altogether. Plutarch adds that the Thebans wanted to sell the entire population as slaves and turn the city into a pasture.** The Spartans, however, refused to destroy their faithful ally in the Persian war and instead settled for destruction of the Long Walls and all but twelve ships, return of the exiles (presumably, exiled for their part in the coup by the 400), and subordination in all matters of foreign policy.*** Lysander was besieging Samos during the negotiations. According to Xenophon, he played no role in determining the terms of peace, other than to send a messenger to the Ephors saying that he deferred to their authority. This seems a bit out of character for a man of such overweening ambition, one who presumably carried strong influence because of his role in delivering victory, and who was not normally given to letting a little thing like constitutional nicety stand in his way. Two Roman era sources say that he did, indeed, use his influence in determining the outcome, though in opposite ways. Pausanias (geographer) says Lysander, together with the King Agis, without seeking the approval of the Assembly, Council or Ephors, were responsible for putting forth the proposal to destroy Athens root and branch. By contrast Polyaenus (military historian) says that Lysander persuaded the Spartans to spare Athens by arguing that it would be useful as a buffer against the growing power of Thebes, especially if he installed a friendly government.****
Kagan (pp. 402-408) proposes that Theramenes spent the time persuading Lysander that it was to his advantage to spare Athens, and that Lysander was ultimately persuaded and sent a message to that effect to the Spartan government and persuaded them as well. This is, of course, pure guesswork, so make of it what you will. Clearly, though, if the guess is true, then because Lysander specifically made the argument to spare Athens if a friendly government were installed, so regime change would appear to be part of the deal. In that sense, Theramenes could truly be said to have spent his time with Lysander plotting against the democracy. If Theramenes did cut such a deal, presumably he would have seen himself as a Petain, agreeing to join a collaberationist government only to save his country from a worse fate. Given the alternatives, this is a reasonable assessment. Then again, Theramenes was clearly among the (not so young) Athenian aristocrats who had long since become disenchanted with the democracy. He had been one of the Four Hundred who had overthrown the democracy before, although he was unwilling to commit treason to uphold the oligarchy. He had played a major role in restoring the democracy and had given it valuable service. But democracy had not been his first choice seven years earlier, and presumably he was even less favorably disposed to it now.
When Theramenes returned, he was greeted by large crowds, desperate for any terms. Xenophon only says that when Theramenes reported the terms to the Assembly, some spoke in opposition, but most agreed to the necessity.
Later speeches cast important light on the "some" who opposed the peace terms, and how their opposition was overcome. These were "generals and commanders," including Strombichides, a general identified in Thucydides as having responded to the revolt at Chios and been the first to arrive in the Hellespont when the Peloponnesians began stirring up trouble there. Off in the Hellespont, he does not appear to have had any role in the coup by the 400 or the democratic revolt against it. The other general named is Dionysodurus. A Dionysodorus is named in Xenophon and Plato, specifically as a teaching military skills, but both also make clear that this Dionysodorus is a foreign visitor, while the one who spoke against the peace had to have been a citizen. Whoever this Dionysodorus may have been, he and Strombichides denounced the terms as worse than what had been proposed before.
Apparently the peace party saw these men as sufficiently dangerous to peace that, like Cleophon, they would have to be removed. They persuaded an informant named Theocritus to appear before the Council and say he had discovered a plot against the peace, though without giving names. He apparently did identify a slave named Agoratus as privy to the plot, so a decree was issued calling for his arrest. The theory was presumably that, as a slave, Agoratus could be compelled to give names under torture. The councillors set out to arrest him, but several citizens offered themselves as sureties in his place. All then fled to sanctuary. They proposed to flee, but Agoratus, although a slave threatened with torture, refused. When the councillors reached the sanctuary, Agoratus left with them and went to the Council chamber where he denounced his sureties, generals Strombichides and Dionysodorus, and unidentified others. He then denounced them before the Assembly as well. (Presumably the Assembly that approved the terms of surrender, to prevent the generals for speaking out against the terms). The Assembly apparently approved their trial before a jury. The men were arrested just as Athens' surrender took place.
The incident is genuine. The speech presents the decree ordering Agoratus' arrestand the decree of the Assembly referring the men to trial. But it is understandable that Xenophon omits it. Certainly it did not have any actual effect on the outcome; Athens was helpless and had little choice but to accede to any terms offered. But after the misfortunes that followed the surrender, it was easy for Athenians to cherish the illusion that if only they had held out a little longer or had a tougher negotiator, they might have gotten more favorable terms.
Those misfortunes will be addressed over the coming series of posts.
______________________________________________
*Although all eligible participants had equal rights in most matters, they were divided into four classes based on wealth for tax and military purposes. The poorest men served in the navy (no gear required), the middle class in the infantry (they could afford a suit of armor), and the rich in the cavalry (they could afford a horse). The role of the super-rich is a little unclear. Probably they outfitted and commanded ships. I stress the young as the main supporters of the Thirty partly because the regime's extreme violence sounds like a government of young men and partly because the young would have seen less of the democracy's achievements and more of its failures. Still, the regime must have had older supporters as well. It continued to set an age limit of 30 to serve in the Council.
**He appears to set this council after Athens had surrendered, when they failed to destroy the walls fast enough.
***Plutarch tells a charming but implausible story that the Peloponnesians relented when they heard a chorus by Euripides and could not bring themselves to destroy such a city.
****This account is inconsistent with him being at Samos when the debate took place, although he did sent a messenger who might have delivered the message, or the debate may have taken place later, as Plutarch says. Either way, presumably this argument was given in private to his fellow countrymen only, since it seems most unlikely that he would have said so right in the presence of the Thebans!
At the same time, there were hardcore populists who could not bring themselves to admit certain cold, hard truths. That the war was lost no one disputed, although many blamed defeat on betrayal, for which there is no evidence. And although the empire was clearly irretrievable, many Athenians vainly hoped to escape any further consequences of defeat and looked with grave suspicion on political maneuvers surrounding the negotiation of terms and later blamed some sort of betrayal there for their later misfortunes. The professional historians give little attention to the political maneuvering that attended Athens' final surrender, seeing it as insignificant to the outcome, given that their navy was destroyed and the city was under blockade and starving. In this they are no doubt right, but these maneuverings may have been signs of a nascent plot to establish an oligarchy if the city survived (a matter decidedly in doubt). They are documented by later speeches eager to find someone to blame and therefore not altogether reliable. But the speeches do give insight into what was happening in Athens during those desperate days.
At some point the Spartans apparently proposed a peace if Athens would demolish the Long Walls connecting the city to its port for the length of ten stadia (about a mile). Archestratus proposed to the Council that they accept and was thrown in prison for it, and such proposals forbidden. The leading instigator in the Assembly against acceptance (and presumably for forbidding and further discussion and imprisoning anyone who suggested it) was our old friend Cleophon, who had previous made himself notable by rejecting peace after Athens first major victory (and possibly the second as well). At this point Theramenes asked to be appointed ambassador, possibly offering to secure better terms. Theramenes remained absent up to three months while conditions in Athens deteriorated, leading many to suspect that he was doing it on purpose to build pressure against Athens, or perhaps conspiring against the democracy. While they waited, the Council decided that Cleophon was an obstacle to peace and arranged to have him tried on dubious charges of deserting his post. But the Council feared a jury would not convict and so Council members Satyrus and Chremon arranged to have him tried by the Council, convicted and executed.
While Theramenes was attempting to negotiate peace with Lysander, the government in Sparta called a meeting of the Peloponnesian League. The mood was ugly. Thebes, Corinth, and various smaller cities opposed any peace and favored destroying Athens altogether. Plutarch adds that the Thebans wanted to sell the entire population as slaves and turn the city into a pasture.** The Spartans, however, refused to destroy their faithful ally in the Persian war and instead settled for destruction of the Long Walls and all but twelve ships, return of the exiles (presumably, exiled for their part in the coup by the 400), and subordination in all matters of foreign policy.*** Lysander was besieging Samos during the negotiations. According to Xenophon, he played no role in determining the terms of peace, other than to send a messenger to the Ephors saying that he deferred to their authority. This seems a bit out of character for a man of such overweening ambition, one who presumably carried strong influence because of his role in delivering victory, and who was not normally given to letting a little thing like constitutional nicety stand in his way. Two Roman era sources say that he did, indeed, use his influence in determining the outcome, though in opposite ways. Pausanias (geographer) says Lysander, together with the King Agis, without seeking the approval of the Assembly, Council or Ephors, were responsible for putting forth the proposal to destroy Athens root and branch. By contrast Polyaenus (military historian) says that Lysander persuaded the Spartans to spare Athens by arguing that it would be useful as a buffer against the growing power of Thebes, especially if he installed a friendly government.****
Kagan (pp. 402-408) proposes that Theramenes spent the time persuading Lysander that it was to his advantage to spare Athens, and that Lysander was ultimately persuaded and sent a message to that effect to the Spartan government and persuaded them as well. This is, of course, pure guesswork, so make of it what you will. Clearly, though, if the guess is true, then because Lysander specifically made the argument to spare Athens if a friendly government were installed, so regime change would appear to be part of the deal. In that sense, Theramenes could truly be said to have spent his time with Lysander plotting against the democracy. If Theramenes did cut such a deal, presumably he would have seen himself as a Petain, agreeing to join a collaberationist government only to save his country from a worse fate. Given the alternatives, this is a reasonable assessment. Then again, Theramenes was clearly among the (not so young) Athenian aristocrats who had long since become disenchanted with the democracy. He had been one of the Four Hundred who had overthrown the democracy before, although he was unwilling to commit treason to uphold the oligarchy. He had played a major role in restoring the democracy and had given it valuable service. But democracy had not been his first choice seven years earlier, and presumably he was even less favorably disposed to it now.
When Theramenes returned, he was greeted by large crowds, desperate for any terms. Xenophon only says that when Theramenes reported the terms to the Assembly, some spoke in opposition, but most agreed to the necessity.
Later speeches cast important light on the "some" who opposed the peace terms, and how their opposition was overcome. These were "generals and commanders," including Strombichides, a general identified in Thucydides as having responded to the revolt at Chios and been the first to arrive in the Hellespont when the Peloponnesians began stirring up trouble there. Off in the Hellespont, he does not appear to have had any role in the coup by the 400 or the democratic revolt against it. The other general named is Dionysodurus. A Dionysodorus is named in Xenophon and Plato, specifically as a teaching military skills, but both also make clear that this Dionysodorus is a foreign visitor, while the one who spoke against the peace had to have been a citizen. Whoever this Dionysodorus may have been, he and Strombichides denounced the terms as worse than what had been proposed before.
Apparently the peace party saw these men as sufficiently dangerous to peace that, like Cleophon, they would have to be removed. They persuaded an informant named Theocritus to appear before the Council and say he had discovered a plot against the peace, though without giving names. He apparently did identify a slave named Agoratus as privy to the plot, so a decree was issued calling for his arrest. The theory was presumably that, as a slave, Agoratus could be compelled to give names under torture. The councillors set out to arrest him, but several citizens offered themselves as sureties in his place. All then fled to sanctuary. They proposed to flee, but Agoratus, although a slave threatened with torture, refused. When the councillors reached the sanctuary, Agoratus left with them and went to the Council chamber where he denounced his sureties, generals Strombichides and Dionysodorus, and unidentified others. He then denounced them before the Assembly as well. (Presumably the Assembly that approved the terms of surrender, to prevent the generals for speaking out against the terms). The Assembly apparently approved their trial before a jury. The men were arrested just as Athens' surrender took place.
The incident is genuine. The speech presents the decree ordering Agoratus' arrestand the decree of the Assembly referring the men to trial. But it is understandable that Xenophon omits it. Certainly it did not have any actual effect on the outcome; Athens was helpless and had little choice but to accede to any terms offered. But after the misfortunes that followed the surrender, it was easy for Athenians to cherish the illusion that if only they had held out a little longer or had a tougher negotiator, they might have gotten more favorable terms.
Those misfortunes will be addressed over the coming series of posts.
______________________________________________
*Although all eligible participants had equal rights in most matters, they were divided into four classes based on wealth for tax and military purposes. The poorest men served in the navy (no gear required), the middle class in the infantry (they could afford a suit of armor), and the rich in the cavalry (they could afford a horse). The role of the super-rich is a little unclear. Probably they outfitted and commanded ships. I stress the young as the main supporters of the Thirty partly because the regime's extreme violence sounds like a government of young men and partly because the young would have seen less of the democracy's achievements and more of its failures. Still, the regime must have had older supporters as well. It continued to set an age limit of 30 to serve in the Council.
**He appears to set this council after Athens had surrendered, when they failed to destroy the walls fast enough.
***Plutarch tells a charming but implausible story that the Peloponnesians relented when they heard a chorus by Euripides and could not bring themselves to destroy such a city.
****This account is inconsistent with him being at Samos when the debate took place, although he did sent a messenger who might have delivered the message, or the debate may have taken place later, as Plutarch says. Either way, presumably this argument was given in private to his fellow countrymen only, since it seems most unlikely that he would have said so right in the presence of the Thebans!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)