Written laws, inscribed on stone or bronze, appear in Greece from around the midseventh century.17 The idea to inscribe laws on durable material probably came from west Asia, where it had been practiced for millennia (Westbrook 1988; 1989). The purpose probably was not least to demonstrate the communal importance of such laws and to place them under the protection of the gods (Thomas 1996). In addition, they were published and accessible, and citizens who made the effort could learn what the law was. The law thus was literally placed “in the middle” (es meson) of the community, and it was the community, through its elected officials, that controlled the law and could change it if it wished. Unlike in West Asia and Egypt, where all-powerful kings initiated and controlled the law, in the Greek polis the law was enacted by the assembly or, upon the mandate of the assembly, by a lawgiver (ch. 21, above). Although publication increased the security and equality of law and thus benefited the less powerful in the polis, the elite probably was as much interested in legislation that helped prevent abuses and thus maintained communal peace (Eder 2005).
Probably in the third quarter of the seventh century, we find the first attestation of a rudimentary constitution: the “Great Rhetra” in Sparta.18 Sparta was suffering from a long and difficult war against the Messenians and from domestic unrest that expressed itself not least in the demand for redistribution of land. Reliance on the citizen army to control the subjected populations became ever more important. Changes were necessary, and they were encoded in the Rhetra. Buttressed by the installation of new cults and a territorial restructuring of the community, the demos, meeting in assembly at fixed dates and a fixed place, now was formally empowered to make the final decisions that concerned the community, although with certain limitations. As citizens, land-owners, soldiers, and assemblymen, they were equal (“peers,” homoioi; Cartledge 2001: 68-75), despite social and economic differences. Most importantly, the communal decision making process was here regulated, the powers of leaders, council, and assembly in this process determined for the first time. However the Rhetra was presented to the community (as an oracle from Delphic Apollo, as the restoration of the initial “polis charter”), most likely it was also hailed as a return to eunomia, the traditional good order.19
One or two generations later, Solon, also aiming to overcome a severe crisis (above), introduced constitutional changes in Athens as well (ch. 8, above). Tradition attributes to him a new popular council with 400 members that balanced the aristocratic Areopagus Council, a system of four classes that linked military to political capacity, and various other measures that increased popular involvement in politics and communal responsibility (Wallace 2007b).20 Yet, overall, despite ancient and modern claims to the contrary, Solon’s constitution, like the Spartan Rhetra, was far from a democracy in any strict sense of the word.21 Like Sparta’s Rhetra, it was hailed by its creator as the restoration of eunomia. What Solon achieved was consonant with his position as a mediator: a system that curtailed elite abuses, introduced appropriate protections, and balanced aristocratic leadership with popular power while emphasizing the citizens’ responsibility for the common good.
Political and constitutional legislation proliferated in the sixth century. Many poleis adopted constitutions that were characterized by a considerable amount of equality for substantial parts of the citizen body (Robinson 1997).22 Most of these constitutions are attested only partially, by inscriptions regulating a particular aspect or by references in later sources (especially Aristotle’s Politics). In the case of Athens, though, we have enough information to reconstruct the entire scheme, even if details remain agonizingly unclear (ch. 8, above). Again reform was prompted by emergency: disruptive aristocratic rivalry, outside intervention, and popular revolt. Empowered by broad support, Cleisthenes realized a reform plan he had proposed earlier, apparently to great acclaim.23 This plan was complex and sophisticated.
Attica had been divided by regions and pockets of aristocratic influence. The margins were still not fully integrated (Anderson 2000). In order to unify country and citizen body, Cleisthenes organized the territory into some 140 local districts (demes) and combined them (supposedly by lot) into new artificial units: regional “thirds” and national “tribes.” Each of the latter comprised districts from the three major regions of the country (Traill 1975). The demes had important functions in exercising “grassroots democracy.” Most importantly, through their tribes, the citizens of the demes were represented proportionally, in a remarkably high density of representation (roughly 1: 60), in the new Council of 500 that played an enhanced political role. They also formed tribal regiments in the newly constituted citizen army and tribal contingents competing in national festivals. The council members, serving for a year (and no more than twice so that over time more than a third of all citizens over eighteen served at least once; Hansen 1999: 249), gained valuable political experience and, commuting between their demes in the large Attic territory and Athens, carried information out and citizen reactions in, thus connecting country and center and creating a “civic presence” in Athens (Meier 1990a: 73-8). All this was enhanced by religious innovations and building activity that turned Athens into the civic center of a large but thoroughly integrated polis (Anderson 2003). As a result, Athens emerged united, triumphed in 506 against attacks by Sparta and hostile neighbors and in 490 mustered the courage to ward off a Persian invasion at Marathon.
Civic subdivisions were typical of Greek poleis (Jones N. F. 1987; Davies 1996), but the scheme designed by Cleisthenes was so complex and sophisticated that it must have been quite exceptional. It was based on a rational assessment of the problems that plagued the Athenian community after the expulsion of the tyrants and of the difficulties posed to communal unity by the large size and topographical diversity of Attica and the economical and social differences among various parts of the citizen body. Hence Cleisthenes created institutions that forced citizens from various areas and backgrounds to collaborate in civic, military, and cultic events. Such collaboration fostered mutual familiarity and trust; it helped integrate the community. Ostracism, a kind of “negative election” to remove temporarily inidividuals that were perceived as dangerous and/or to avoid political paralysis (Eder 1998: 118-21; Dreher 2000; Forsdyke 2005) reveals the same spirit of rational innovation and ingenuity. That Cleisthenes was able to make his bold proposals palatable to his fellow citizens attests to his political skills and ability to sense the needs and will of both people and elite - and to their readiness to demand and accept change for the common good. Overall, his reforms represent an extraordinary intellectual and political achievement, indispensable for the fully developed democracy of the fifth century.
World History
