12
36. The Thirty and the amnesty
In the summer of 405 the Spartan admiral Lysander defeated the Athenians at Aegospotami, in the waters of the Hellespont. After the battle, Lysander proceeded to seize the important Athenian strongholds of Byzantium and Calcedon, and then set sail towards Attica, while the kings Agis and Pausanias were preparing to besiege Athens by land. The Peloponnesian War was over and democratic Athens had been defeated. When the messenger-ship Paralus landed at the Piraeus bringing news of the disaster of Aegospotami, the grieving Athenians realized that the days of empire were over, and that they were soon to suffer the same harsh treatment that they had inflicted to many of their enemies and subjects [a].
Besieged by land and sea, the Athenians were starved into signing a humiliating peace treaty, providing for the demolition of the Long Walls and the fortifications of the Piraeus, and the decimation of the fleet. Athens was forced to join the Peloponnesian league [b].
With Lysander in town, democracy was formally abolished. The Athenian assembly appointed a new commission of 30 men loyal to Sparta, whose formal mandate was to draw up a new constitution based on the ancestral laws. Political rights were limited to the 3,000 wealthiest citizens, and the powers of the popular tribunal were transferred to a committee of 300 members. The Thirty however never prepared any constitutional draft, nor did they pass power to the new assembly of the Three Thousand. Instead, they ruled the city as tyrant. Firstly they arrested those who were known as scoundrels and enemies of the aristocracy, then began to target the properties of rich metics. One of these was the father of the great orator Lysias. The men suspected of hostility towards the tyrants were arrested and murdered. After a few months, the junta, marred by internal divisions, decided to tighten its grip on the city: all those who did not belong to the body of the three thousand were banned from the asty [c, d]. The city of Thebes became the centre of the Athenian resistance. In the winter of 404/403, troops under the command of Trasybulus moved south and occupied Munichia, a mound near the Piraeus, where they successfully engaged in battle with the men of the Thirty. At this point, the Spartans also moved into Attica, but they did not provided the decisive help that the Thirty were hoping for. Rather, King Pausanias mediated a truce between the two parties: the old democratic constitution was to be restored and Athens would remain an ally of Sparta. The men of the two factions committed themselves to live in peace with each other, while Eleusis, the old stronghold of the tyrants, would be granted a semi-independent status, for those who were not willing to join their fellow-citizens in the restored democracy. A general amnesty was passed for the crimes perpetrated under the junta, except for those of the tyrants themselves and their closer associates.
The restoration of democracy after the overthrow of the Thirty is a milestone in the history of ancient Athens. The text of the oath sworn by the two factions is reported in a speech by Andocides [e]. The Aristotelian Constitution has an accurate account of the terms under which democracy was restored [f]. As the author highlights, the process was carried out commendably smoothly, and without violence.
[a] Xen. Hell. 2.2.3: The news of Aegospotami reaches Athens
The night that the ship Paralus arrived at Athens bringing news of the disaster, a cry of grief ran from the Piraeus through the Long Walls and into the city, one man passing the news to another. Nobody slept that night, for they were all mourning not only the loss of men, but also their own fate, thinking that they would have to endure the same treatment that they had inflicted upon the Melians, colonists of the Spartans, after taking them by siege, and then the Histiaeans, and the Scionaeans and the Toronaeans and the Aeginetans and many other Greeks.
[b] Xen. Hell. 2.20.2–3: The humiliating peace with Sparta
The Spartans said that they would not enslave a city which had done great service to Greece in the time of the greatest danger. So they offered to make peace on the following conditions. The Athenians should demolish the Long Walls and the walls of Piraeus, surrender all their ships except twelve, allow their exiles to return. Also, they should have the same friends and enemies as the Spartans, and follow them by land and by sea wherever they should lead the way.
So Theramenes and his fellow-ambassadors reported this to Athens. And as they were entering a city, a great crowd gathered around them, fearful that they had achieved nothing. For it was no longer possible to delay, owing to the number who were dying of the famine. On the next days the ambassadors reported to the assembly the terms on which the Spartans intended to make peace. Theramenes spoke on behalf of the ambassadors and urged that it was necessary to yield to the Spartans and demolish the walls. Although some spoke against him, a far greater number approved of his resolution, and so it was voted to accept the peace. After this, Lysander sailed into Piraeus, the exiles returned, and the Peloponnesians began to tear down the walls with great enthusiasm to the music of flute-girls, thinking that that day was the beginning of freedom for Greece.
[c] Xen. Hell. 2.3.1–3: The Thirty take power
In the following year, when it was celebrated an Olympiad, and Crocinas of Thessaly was victorious in the stadium, Endius was ephor at Sparta and Pythodorus archon at Athens. However, since Pythodorus was chosen during the time of the oligarchy, the Athenians do not use his name to mark the year, but call it instead the ‘year of anarchy’, or ‘the year without archon’. And this oligarchy came into being in the way hereafter described.
This is how the oligarchy was installed: it was voted by the people to choose thirty men to prepare a new constitution based on the ancestral law and to conduct the government under this constitution. The following men were chosen: 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. After this, Lysander sailed off to Samos, while Agis withdrew the land force from Decelea and dismissed the several contingents to their cities.
[d] Xen. Hell. 2.3.11–12: Excesses of the Thirty
At Athens the Thirty had been appointed as soon as the Long Walls and the walls round Piraeus were demolished. Although, however, they had been chosen for the purpose of writing a constitution for the government of the city, they continually delayed the writing and publication of it. Instead, they appointed a council and other magistrates as they deemed fit. Then, as a first measure, they began to arrest and bring to trial for their lives those men who by common knowledge had made a living in the time of the democracy by acting as informers and had been hostile to the aristocrats. And the council was glad to vote these people guilty, and the rest of the citizens, or at least those who knew that they were not like them, were not displeased at all.
[e] And. Myst. 90: The amnesty oath
‘… and I will bear no grievance against any of the citizens, except only the Thirty, the Ten, and the Eleven: and even among them against none who shall agree to give account of his office.’
[f] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 39.1–2: Reconciliation and amnesty after the fall of the Thirty
The reconciliation took place in the archonship of Euclides, under the following agreement:
‘The Athenians who have remained in the city but are willing to emigrate, can move to Eleusis remaining in possession of their rights. They will be sovereign, and independent, and will enjoy the profits of their revenues. The temple will be shared by both parties and will be administered by the Cheruches and Eumolpides in accordance with the ancestral laws. But those at Eleusis are not permitted to move to the city, nor those in the city to Eleusis, except for both of them on occasion of the Mysteries. Those in Eleusis are required to contribute to the military expenses like the other Athenians. Those who leave the city and take a home in Eleusis will be assisted to convince the owner. If they cannot find an agreement, each party shall choose three assessors and accept whatever price they quote. And of the people of Eleusis those whom the settlers want to dwell with them will be allowed to do so. The registration of those who want to emigrate and reside in the countryside shall take place within ten days from the swearing of the oath, and they shall move to Eleusis within twenty days. The same procedure shall apply to those who are abroad, from the date of their return. It will not be permitted to any of those who take residence in Eleusis to hold any of the offices in the city until he registers to live in the city.
The trials for homicide will take place in accordance with the ancestral laws, if a man has killed or wounded another one with his own hands. There will be an amnesty for all the crimes of the past, applying to everyone except the Thirty, the Ten, the Eleven and the magistrates at the Piraeus, if they do not render account. And the magistrates at the Piraeus shall render account before the courts at the Piraeus, and those in the city before a court of citizens who can provide an account of their property. Those who do not render account on these terms shall migrate. Each party shall repay separately the loans contracted for the war.’
The reconciliation took place on the above terms. Those who had fought with the Thirty were alarmed, and many considered emigrating, but did not register until the very last days, as everybody always does. And so Archinus, seeing how many they were and wishing to keep them in Athens, cancelled the days that remained for the registration, so that they would be compelled to remain against their will, until they regained courage. This seems to have been an act of good government from Archinus, and so was what he did later, when he indicted as illegal the decree of Thrasybulus granting a share in the citizenship to all those who had returned together from exile at the Piraeus, some of whom were clearly slaves. His third statesmanlike act was that when a certain individual began to bear grudges against those who had returned, he brought him before the council and persuaded the councilmen to put him to death without trial, telling them that the time had come for them to show if they wanted to save the democratic constitution and keep the oaths. For if they let him go, they would encourage the others to do the same, but if they got rid of this man they would make him an example to all. And this is what really happened, for since the moment that man was put to death, nobody has ever broken the amnesty, but they appear to have come to terms with their past misfortunes in the most honourable manner, as good citizens should do, both as concerned their private and public affairs. In fact, the Athenians not only obliterated all the disputes concerning the events of the past, but also gave public restitution to the Spartans of the funds which the Thirty had taken for the war, even though the treaty provided for the parties in the city and at the Piraeus to give back the funds separately. For the Athenians thought that this should be the the first step towards civic harmony, whereas in the other cities the leaders of the people do not contribute out of their own property, and also redistribute the land. Furthermore, in the archonship of Xenaenetus, they made a reconciliation with those who settled at Eleusis, two years after they migrated.
37. Plato, the death of Socrates and the debate on democracy
The aftermath of the fall of the Thirty was a time of lively debate on the principles and forms of Athenian democracy. In his first public address following the overthrow of the junta, Thrasybulus reassured the Athenians that they would return to live under the old laws [a]. A decree was also proposed to grant full citizenship rights (isoteleia) to the foreigners who had fought against the Thirty. The assembly however did not approve it. Pericles’ law on citizenship was duly restored [b].
The restoration of democracy was achieved without bloodshed, but this does not mean that it was immune from witch-hunting, the most famous victim of it being Socrates, who was made pay for his proximity to some of the leaders of the oligarchic coups of 411 and 404, such as Critias and Theramenes. In 399, the philosopher Socrates was brought to trial and judged guilty of corrupting the youth and blasphemy. The death of Socrates was an important turning point in the life of the young Plato, who decided to put aside his ambitions of a political career to devote himself to philosophy and thus contribute to the moral regeneration of the polis [c].
[a] Xen. Hell. 2.4.40–2: Thrasybulus and the restoration of democracy, the men of the city and the men of the Piraeus
‘Citizens, this is my advice for you: know yourselves. And you would best learn to know yourselves if you were to consider why you are so arrogant as to claim that you should rule over us. Because you are more just than us? But the people, although they are poorer than you, have never done any wrong to you for the sake of money. While you, although wealthier than any of them, have done many shameful things for the sake of gain. And since you have no special claim to justice, consider whether you are entitled to pride yourselves on your courage. And what better test of your courage could there be than the way we fought against each other? Or maybe you think you are more intelligent, you who had a wealth of weapons, walls and money, not to mention the Peloponnesians as allies, and yet have been defeated by men who had none of those things? Or maybe it is your friendship with the Spartans that you are so proud about? What? They handed you to the outraged people as someone would put a collar around the neck of a biting dog, and hand him to the keepers. Yes, they have turned their backs to you and gone away. But, gentlemen, it is not for me to ask you to violate any of your solemn oaths. Rather I beg you to show this other virtue in addition to all the other virtues that you have: show the world that you can be faithful to your oaths, and flawless in your conduct.’
When he had said these things and more to the same effect, and had told them that there was no need for them to be worried, but that they had only to live under the laws that had previously been in force, he dismissed the assembly.
[b] FGH 4.358 F11 (= Athen. Deip. 13.577b): The law of Aristophon
Aristophon the orator, in the archonship of Euclides, passed a law that everyone who was not born from an Athenian mother was illegitimate.
[c] Plato Lett. VII 324b–326b: The young Plato and the crisis of the Athenian constitution
When I was young I went through the same experiences as many others. My intention was to enter into the public life of the city as soon as I could become my own master. But then it so happened that the following changes had befallen the state. The existing government, vilified as it was by many, underwent a revolution, and fifty-one men were at the head of this revolution: eleven of them were in the city, and ten in the Piraeus. These two groups were in control of the market-square and all the matters relating to the city. Then there was a group of thirty, who had full powers over all. Some of these men happened to be familiar and known to me, and they did invite me to take a share in their project. The feelings which I then experienced were not at all surprising, if one considers my young age: I was convinced that those men would govern the city by leading it out of an unjust life into a just one, and so I devoted my mind to them with enthusiasm, I was eager to see what they could do. But then I saw these men in a short lapse of time make the old regime appear as a golden age, above all the way in which they treated my friend Socrates, an old man, whom I would certainly not hesitate to call the most just of the men then living, when they sent him along with others to fetch a man by force to put him to death, so that he would have a share of their actions whether he wished or no. But Socrates refused to obey; he risked incurring the heaviest punishments rather than being an accomplice of their crimes. I could no more endure to be a witness of all these grave actions, and others not inferior, so withdrew myself from all the evil actions which were going on. After a short while, however, the junta of the Thirty and the whole government then in place fell altogether. At this juncture I felt once again a desire to take part in the common and political affairs, though more hesitantly. Many other unbearable events were taking place in those troubled times, and it is not surprising that, in the midst of these disorders, some individuals were taking revenge upon their foes with excessive severity, even though those who were then returning from exile gave proof of considerable equity. But then something quite unfortunate happened: some of those in power brought my friend Socrates before a court on a most ignominious charge, which Socrates least of all deserved. For they brought him to trial on the charge of impiety, and others voted him guilty and sentenced him to death: the same man who, when they themselves were in the unfortunate situation of being exiles, had refused to take part in the unholy arrest of one of their exiled friends. And when I considered all these events and who were the men in charge of the affairs of the city, and their laws and customs: the more I considered them and the older I grew in age, the more difficult it appeared to me to administer the affairs of the city. For it was impossible to take any action without friends and companions worthy of one’s trust, and these were not were not easy to find ready at hand, because our city was no longer governed according to the principles and customs of the fathers, and it was impossible to acquire new friends with some ease. The written laws and the ancestral customs were being corrupted with incredible rapidity. So, while at first I was full of desire to engage in political activity, when I considered all these things, and the way in which the affairs of the cities were being swept about in all directions, I finally became dizzy, and although I did not stop considering how the city’s constitution and the general state of affairs could be improved, I resolved to postpone action till the right opportunity should arise. Finally, it became clear to me, with regard to all existing cities, that they were all badly governed. For their laws had reached a state of almost incurable illness without some extraordinary reform, and good luck to support it. And so in my praise of true philosophy I was compelled to say that it is what makes men discern justice both in public and private affairs.
38. Socrates’ trial and the power of rhetoric
The Apology of Socrates is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, work written by Plato. The text is a version of the speech which Socrates gave in his own defence on the charges of corrupting the youth and blasphemy. In the opening lines Socrates says that he recognize himself in the Socrates sketched out in the speech of his accusers, and tells the jury that he has no intention of persuading them by means of clever speaking, of which he is incapable: he wants them to be persuaded by the truth of facts [a]. Socrates presents himself as the most law-abiding of citizens, who was not afraid of defying public opinion, as he did at the time of the Arginusae scandal, when he stood against the decision of trying all the generals together, or at the time of the Thirty Tyrants [b].
Socrates was often (and wrongly) associated with the activity of the so-called sophists, the ‘teachers of wisdom’, usually foreigners who taught young and wealthy Athenians how to succeed in the assemblies and law courts by means of rhetorical persuasion. The deceiving power of rhetoric and the fallacies of a political system based on public debate is one of the main themes of Plato’s early works, like the dialogue Gorgias. Discussing the true nature of rhetoric with the namesake of this dialogue, the famous sophist Gorgias of Leontini, Socrates argues that the goal of rhetoric is not to improve the citizens and set them on the path to virtue and truth, but simply to court their favour, with little regard for the truth, or the common good of the polis community [c].
[a] Pl. Ap. 17a–b: Socrates and the power of rhetoric
Athenians: I don’t know whether you have been persuaded by my accusers. As for me, they spoke so cleverly that I have almost forgotten who I am. And yet there is hardly a word of truth in what they said. Of all their lies, one I found particularly shocking: when they said that you should beware of being deceived by me, because I am a clever speaker. This, I think, was the most shameful part of their conduct because I will soon show them guilty of falsehood by the evidence of fact, when I show myself to be not in the least a clever speaker, unless indeed they call a clever speaker him who speaks the truth; for if this is what they mean, I would agree that I am an orator, not after their fashion. Now, as I say, they have said little or nothing true; but you shall hear from me nothing but the truth.
[b] Pl. Ap. 32b–33c: Socrates’ defence
Athenians: I have never held any public office, except for serving in the council for one term. And it so happened that my tribe, the Antiochis, was holding the prytany when you decreed to try not individually, but all in the same trial, the ten generals who had not recovered the shipwrecked after the battle: this was an illegal procedure, as you all acknowledged afterwards. On that occasion I was the only one of the prytanes who refused to do anything against the laws. The city was against me, the orators were ready to impeach and arrest me and you were shouting your support for them: but I thought that I must run all risks with law and justice on my side, rather than being on your side, fearing imprisonment or death, when you were wishing for unjust things. At that time democracy was still standing, but once the oligarchy was established, the Thirty sent for me and four others to come to the rotunda, and ordered us to bring Leon the Salaminian from Salamis to be put to death. They gave such instructions to other people as well, wishing to associate as many people as they could in their misdeeds. And on that occasion I demonstrated once again with my actions, and not in words only, that I don’t care about dying, if this is not too vulgar an expression, but not doing anything unjust or unholy: that is what I really care about. That government, in spite of all its power, did not scare me into doing anything unjust, but when we got out of the rotunda, the other four sailed off to Salamis and arrested Leon, while I went home, and perhaps I should have been sentenced to death for it, if the government had not been overthrown shortly afterwards. You have many witnesses of these events.
Now, do you think that I could have lived so many years if I had been active in politics and behaved as an honest man is supposed to behave, by giving my aid to just causes, and considering this of the highest importance? Certainly not, Athenians, nor could have any other man. Yet, you will find that throughout my life I have always behaved as I am doing now, both in public and in private, and have never yielded to anyone unjustly, whether it was any other person or any of those who are said by my accusers to be my pupils, but I have never been anyone’s teacher: if anyone, young or old, desires to hear me talking while I pursue my interests, I have nothing to object. I do not converse with people only when I get a fee, or do not when I don’t, but I talk with the rich and poor indifferently, and whoever wishes may answer and hear what I have to say. And whether any of these discussions turns out to be useful or not, I should not be held justly responsible, for I have never promised anything or given orders to any of my listeners. And if anybody says they have learnt or heard anything from me in private conversations, of which everybody else was in the dark, he is certainly lying.
[c] Pl. Gor. 502d–504a: Socrates, Gorgias and the power of rhetoric
SOCRATES: Very well. But now, what can we make of the kind of rhetoric addressed to the Athenian people, or to the other assemblies of free men in the other cities? What can we make of them? Do you think that the orators are always speaking with a view to what is best, and, having this in mind, to make the citizens as good as possible through their speeches, or are they set to court the favour of the people, just like poets do? And do they treat these assemblies like children, by simply trying to please them, neglecting the common good for their personal interest, and not consider whether the citizens will be better or worse in consequence of their speeches?
CALLICLES: The question you ask is not an easy one. For some of the orators speak with the interest of the citizens in mind, while others are just as you say.
S.: That is enough for me. For if oratory is a twofold business, on one part, I assume, you will have flattery and clap-trap of the basest sort, and on the other there will be the noble endeavour to make the citizens’ souls as good as possible, and a constant effort to say what is best, be it pleasant or fastidious to the audience. But this is a kind of oratory which you have yet to see, or if you have in mind any such orator, you should tell me his name at once!
C.: No, by Zeus, I cannot tell you of anyone among the orators of today.
S.: So what? Can you mention any of the orators of the past to whom the Athenians should be grateful for having begun to improve them with his speeches, from the worse state in which he originally found them? Personally, I don’t know who such a man might be.
C.: What? Haven’t you heard of Themistocles, how good he was, and Cimon and Miltiades and the great Pericles, who has recently passed away, and whom you heard yourself?
S.: Certainly, Callicles, but only if true virtue was what you are talking about now: the satisfaction of one man’s desires and of those of other men. But if that is not so, and the truth is, as we had to recognize in the following discussion, that only those desires that improve men through their fulfilment should be satisfied, while those which make them worse should not, and that this is a kind of art, then for one I cannot tell you of any man of such qualities having lived among them.
C.: Well, if you search well, you will find one.
S.: Then we should ponder the matter with some calm, and see whether any such orator has ever existed. So please tell me: the good man, the man who speaks aiming at what is best, will not speak at random, but with a definite goal in mind? Well, this orator is like all the other craftsmen, who, having a specific object in mind, chose the things necessary for that work not randomly, but with the purpose of giving a certain appearance to whatever they are working on. Look for instance at the painters, the builders, the shipwrights, or any of the other craftsmen, you name it, and see how each of them arranges everything in reason of a given order, and compels all its parts to fit together, until he has combined the whole into a well-ordered and well-arranged object. And those who deal with the human body, like trainers and doctors, they too bring a coherent order into the body. Isn’t that so?