We return to a statement made earlier. Athenian democracy was a unique system, unprecedented and never fully imitated in history. It transformed values and relationships, created a new type of citizen (whom Plato characterizes sarcastically in Republic book 8, alongside his oligarchic counterpart, the oligarchikos, whom Theophrastos portrayed in one of his character sketches, Charakteres 26), and shaped the polis’ policies and relations to the outside world.
Thucydides, dissecting the phenomena that influence the course of history, formulates this pointedly twice, both times in comparison with Sparta, the idol of democracy’s opponents (Xenophon Lak. Pol. offers a good illustration). The contrast with Sparta pervades Perikles' Funeral Oration, explicitly and proudly when the issue is military training and education (Thuc. 2.39), implicitly and more defensively when attention turns to respect for the law (2.37.3) - a sore point in critical discussions of democracy (Cohen 1995; Millender 2002). Trying to rouse Sparta to action, the Korinthians draw a collective character portrait of the hyperactive, aggressively interventionist Athenians, models of polypragmosyne and the total opposite of the slow and cautious Spartans:
An Athenian is always an innovator, quick to form a resolution and quick at carrying it out.. .Athenian daring will outrun its own resources; they will take risks against their better judgement, and still, in the midst of danger, remain confident...; they never hesitate. . . , they are always abroad, for they think that the farther they go the more they will get... If they win a victory, they follow it up at once, and if they suffer a defeat, they scarcely fall back at all. As for their bodies, they regard them as expendable for their city’s sake, as though they were not their own; but each man cultivates his own intelligence, again with a view to doing something notable for his city... They prefer hardship and activity to peace and quiet. In a word, they are by nature incapable of either living a quiet life themselves or of allowing anyone else to do so. (Thuc. 1.70)
Much of this is echoed in the Funeral Oration, culminating in Perikles’ demand that the citizen be a ‘‘lover of his city’’ (erastes, Thuc. 2.43.1), just as democratic leaders in the post-Periklean period present themselves as ‘‘friends of the city’’ or ‘‘friends of the demos’’ (philopolis, philodemos, Connor 1971: 99-108). A strong link between democracy, naval power, and Athens’ propensity to pursue aggressive and expansionist policies seems undeniable (Raaflaub 1994), and thus democracy was a crucial condition for the radical transformation of warfare in the fifth century (Strauss 1996; Hanson 2001).
Democracy emerged in interaction with naval power and the empire. Together, these developments transformed Athenian society profoundly in the generation after the Persian Wars (Raaflaub 1998). To determine precisely what impact democracy itself had on Athenian society is more difficult. Because of imperial and other revenues, the polis disposed of exceptionally large resources and was used to paying its sailors and soldiers, which again was exceptional; both conditions are likely to have facilitated the introduction of state pay for political and judicial functions. Moreover, both empire and naval power caused exceptional amounts of business for council, assembly, and law courts, and necessitated the establishment of numerous committees and offices, both in Athens/Attika and abroad (Schuller 1984). As a result, the level of regular citizen involvement in politics, public administration, and military duties was staggeringly high. So was that of the citizens’ familiarity with the ordinary aspects of state business and the empire (the demos’ ignorance, noted acidly by critics, became a serious problem only when campaigns aimed at conquests far beyond the polis’ traditional sphere of influence; Ober 1993). No other polis came even close to matching these conditions. Politically, Athenian democracy thus must have been markedly different from democracies operating in other poleis.
The transformation of Athens in the generation after the Persian Wars went far beyond politics. As its fleet dominated the seas, piracy was eliminated, trade was facilitated, and Athens became the hub of trade in the Aegean and far beyond. The fleet of triremes, each manned by up to 200 men, and the shipyards that built and maintained hundreds of triremes required enormous manpower resources; Garland (1987: 68) estimates 20,000 for the latter in the fourth century. Many men may have rowed in the summer and worked in the shipyards in the winter (Finley 1983: ch. 3). Weapons manufacturers flourished. Athens and its harbor, the Piraeus, became places of opportunity for foreign immigrants and migrants from the Attic hinterland.
The population of this large metropolitan and port area increased dramatically; it needed to be housed, fed, and entertained. The Piraeus became a city in its own right and was connected with Athens by the Long Walls in the 450s. Moreover, the ruling demos assumed the functions traditionally held by tyrants and aristocracies in sponsoring festivals and authorizing the construction of public buildings and temples (Kallet 1998; 2003). All this added to an economic boom and had important demographic and political consequences.
Although most citizens continued to live a rural life in the villages and towns of Attika (Thuc. 2.14-16), an extraordinary proportion now became urban dwellers and earned their living by working in state-funded enterprises. Their number increased even more when during the Peloponnesian War the population of Attika was evacuated into the fortress Athens-Piraeus, while the Spartans ravaged the Attic country. As a result, a much larger than usual part of the citizen body was able to attend meetings of the assembly and law courts and had a direct interest in decisions that were made there. According to Thucydides, the expectation of rich revenues and guaranteed pay for years to come was a major factor in fueling the masses’ enthusiasm for the Sicilian expedition (6.24). At the same time, the proportion of‘‘industrialists’’ and entrepreneurs among the wealthy elite and of politicians coming from this part of the elite increased dramatically (Rhodes 2000: 131): Kleon the tanner, mercilessly satirized in Aristophanes’ Knights (Lind 1990), and Nikias, the owner of thousands of slaves hired out to work in the silver mines of Laureion, are good examples. The number of resident aliens increased dramatically, making it necessary to define their status (Whitehead 1977; Bakewell 1997) and eventually prompting the Athenians to adopt a more restrictive concept of citizenship (Patterson 1981; Boegehold 1994; Blok 2003). The number and importance of slaves must have grown exponentially as well, although these aspects are even more elusive and much debated (Osborne 1995; summary in Raaflaub 1998: 26-8). The Old Oligarch comments that the Athenians’ involvement in public matters increased their dependence on metic and slave labor to such an extent that they were forced to give them a unique degree of independence (freedom of speech, Pseudo-Xenophon Ath. Pol. 1.10-12).
The impact of democracy on Athenian families is more difficult to gauge. A longstanding scholarly debate turns on the question of whether or not the political empowerment of all male citizens caused them to treat their womenfolk more oppressively and, if so, how exactly the interaction between democracy and the status of women should be defined (summarized in Raaflaub 1998: 32-6). Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (mentioned above) seems to undercut a democratic ideology that placed the polis and public sphere over the family and private sphere, demanding a reintegration of both for the good of all. Otherwise it must have been the war rather than democracy that caused families to suffer. In the disguise of myth, Euripides presents their misery on stage (Andromache, Hecuba, Suppliants, Trojan Women) - without noticeable effect on Athenian policies. Finally, scholars have searched, mostly in vain, for indications of any direct impact of democracy on Athenian religion. With very few exceptions (such as the modes of selecting priests for new cults), the relationship seems to be rather general (visible in an increase of festivals and sacrifices and, therefore, of meat offered for consumption to the citizens) and indirect: it was rather the polis’ imperial and war policies that necessitated, and provided the means for, generous and ostentatious propitiation of the state’s divine supporters through the construction and sumptuous decoration of magnificent sanctuaries (summarized in Raaflaub 1998: 36-40; see Boedeker (forthcoming)).
World History
