6
17. Democracy and maritime expansion: The effects of Cleisthenes’ isonomia
The regime of isonomia put in place by Clisthenes in 509/508 gave unprecedented momentum to the process of democratization of the Athenian constitution [a]. The institution of the new tribes had important repercussions on the organization of the Athenian military. The army was now divided into ten tribal regiments commanded by a strategos (‘general’). The original role of a strategos was that of leading his tribe’s hoplite phalanx on the battlefield. After the Persian War, the development of the naval power of Athens changed radically the military policies of the city and, consequently, the duties and political responsibilities of the strategoi. The strategia would soon become the most important office of the city, leading to an equally swift decline of the archonship. Unlike the other Athenian magistrates, the strategoi were not appointed by lot, but by popular vote. Also, it was possible to be re-elected to the strategia for an unlimited number of times. Pericles, for instance, the greatest leader of classical Athens, was elected to the strategia for a record 22 times, and almost uninterruptedly between 448 and 429.
Cleisthenes is also credited with the introduction of ostracism, a curious procedure whereby the Athenians could expel any citizen considered to be politically dangerous for a period of ten years. The first man to be ostracized was Hipparchus, an associate of the Psisitratids, in 487. In the same year, the Athenians changed the procedure for appointing the nine archons from election to lot. This was a clear sign of the declining importance of archonship, which was becoming a largely ceremonial magistracy.
The term ostrakismos was derived from the pieces of broken pottery (ostraka), where the Athenians wrote down the name of their fellow-citizens whom they wanted to be exiled. A detailed description of how ostracism worked is given in a fragment of the 3rd-century historian Philochorus [b]. According to Aristotle, the presence of such procedures to expel potentially troublesome citizens was a typical feature of democratic regimes [c]. Syracuse for instance had an institution similar to ostracism known as petalismos. The name in this case was derived from the olive leaves (petala), which the people of Syracuse used to cast their vote. The author of the Constitution argues that Cleisthenes devised this procedure in order to get rid of the supporters of the Pisistratids [a]. In 484, Xanthippus, the father of Pericles, was the first Athenian citizen to be ostracized without having been involved in the activities of the tyrants [d]. Two years later, the Athenians ostracized Aristides, a conservative politician, who was opposing the policies of naval expansion promoted by Themistocles [e].
[a] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 22.1–6: Cleisthenes made Athens more democratic
Once these reforms were put in place, the constitution became more democratic than that of Solon. For it had so happened that under the tyrants the laws of Solon had disappeared due to disuse, while Cleisthenes created new ones aimed at the people, such as the law on ostracism. In the fifth year after the introduction of these laws, in the archonship of Ermocreon, they instituted the oath for the council of the five hundred, which is still in use. Then they began to appoint the generals by tribe, one from each tribe, while the polemarch was the head of the whole army. In the twelfth year after this, the Athenians won the battle of Marathon; two years after the victory, in the archonship of Phainippus, the emboldened people put into practice for the first time the law on ostracism. This law had been established owing to the mounting suspicion against those in power, because Pisistratus had risen to tyranny from the position of demagogue and general. The first man to be ostracized was one of his relatives, Ipparchus, son of Charmus, of the deme of Collytus. In fact, Cleisthenes had set up the law on ostracism especially to get rid of him. This he did because the Athenians, with their customary mildness, had permitted the friends of the tyrants who had not been directly involved in their crimes during the civic unrest to remain in the city, and Ipparchus was their leader and chief. Straight after that, in the following year, in the archonship of Telesinus, for the first time since the tyrant, the Athenians appointed the nine archons by lot, tribe by tribe, from a preliminary list of five hundred candidates chosen by the demesmen. Previously they used to elect the archons by vote. Also, they ostracized Megacles son of Hippocrates of the deme of Alopeche. For three years they went on ostracizing the friends of the tyrants, in accordance with the original purpose of the law, but in the fourth year, they used it to expel any citizen who appeared to be too powerful. The first man with no link with the tyrants to be ostracized was Xanthippus son of Ariphron.
[b] Philochorus, FGH 328 F30 = Lexikon rhetoricum Cantabrigense p. 354.1N; Lexikon to Demosthenes, against Aristocrates (P. Berol. 5008, B27): How ostracism worked
These were the rules of ostracism: before the eighth pritany1 the people held a preliminary vote to decide whether they should hold an ostracism. If they voted to do so, the agora was fenced in with wooden panels, and ten entrances were opened on these panels, through which the people would enter arranged by tribe to cast their secret ballots. The nine archons and the boule were in charge of proceedings. Once they had counted the shards (ostraka) to determine who had the most votes, if the total number of votes was no less than 6,000, this person had to settle his affairs within ten days and leave the city for ten years (this term was later reduced to five years). He continued to receive the profits of his estate, provided that he did not get into the territory of Attica past the promontory Gerastaeum on the coast of Euboaea.
Hyperbolus was the only man of no prominence to be ostracized not because he was suspected of aiming at tyranny, but on account of the vulgarity of his character. After the ostracism of Hyperbolus the practice was discontinued. Ostracism had been introduced as part of the reforms of Cleisthenes, when he dissolved the tyranny. His aim was to expel the friends of the tyrants from Athens.
[c] Arist. Pol. 3.8.2: Ostracism and democracy
Democratic states have conceived the practice of ostracism because they are meant to pursue equality above all other things; therefore these states used to ostracize the men considered to be excessively powerful in terms of wealth, or popular support or any other form of political ascendancy, and these men they banished from the city for a fixed period of time.
[d] M&L 21: Xanthippus’ ostrakon
The cursed Xanthippus, son of Arriphron has done more harm than any other politician.
An ostrakon of Xanthippus from the Agora Museum of Anthens.
[e] Plut. Arist. 7.1-4: The ostracisms of Aristides and Hyperbolus
Aristides at first happened to be much loved by the Athenians owing to his surname. Later on however this sentiment turned into hatred and jealousy, especially since Themistocles began to spread stories among the people that Aristides had abolished the law-courts by examining and judging every case himself, and that he had established a monarchy without anybody noticing it, except that he did not have a bodyguard. Furthermore, the people, emboldened by their victory, were now convinced that nothing was too good for them, and therefore hated those who stood above the crowd owing to their fame and name. So, the Athenians gave to their envy for his reputation the name of fear of tyranny, and having gathered from the countryside into the city, ostracized Aristides.
Now, the procedure of ostracism was not a measure to correct one’s immorality. Rather, it was considered with some speciousness to be a form of humbling and docking of an individual’s prestige and power. In fact, ostracism was a humane way of releasing jealousy, which vented a malignant desire to cause harm without inflicting any irreparable injury, but by imposing a change of residence for a period of ten years. And when the ostracism began to be employed against the low-born scoundrels, then the Athenians ceased to use it. The last ostracism was that of Hyperbolus, and they say that Hyperbolus was ostracized for the following reason: Alcibiades and Nicias were the most powerful politicians of the time, and were at variance with each other, but when the people were about to hold an ostracism, and were clearly going to ostracize either of them, then they mended their differences, brought their factions together, and prepared the ground for the ostracism of Hyperbolus. This outraged the Athenians, who felt that the institution of ostracism had been mistreated and abused, and so they abandoned and put an end to it altogether.
18. Democratic Athens and the other Aegean powers
The cultural and political revolution brought about by Clisthenes’ reforms at the end of the 6th century was to have major international repercussions. The democratization of Athens was a cause of great concern among the Spartans. In 506, King Cleomenes launched a campaign to invade Attica, overthrow democracy and install a tyranny under Isagoras. The campaign resulted in a fiasco, and was soon followed by a series of successful Athenian operations in Peloponnesian territory. Democratic Athens was a power on the rise: no longer oppressed by tyranny, the Athenians could now release their energy, ambition and inventiveness to make their city great. Herodotus describes the revolution set in motion by Cleisthenes with one word: isegoria (isos = ‘equal’; agoreuein = ‘to speak in public’). Isegoria did not refer to the natural equality of all citizens before the law. Rather, it implied that all citizens had an equal right to address the assembly. This does not mean that all citizens were expected to address the ekklesia, but any Athenian who was willing to contribute to the life of the community was given the opportunity and a suitable platform to do so (see Hansen 83–4) [a]. The emergence of democratic Athens was an unsettling force in the world of the poleis, which asked a number of questions of the established powers of Greece, particularly in the Peloponnese. When Cleomenes tried to persuade his Peloponnesian allies to embark upon a new expedition into Attica to restore the tyranny of the Pisistratids, he met with no success. The king was confronted by a Corinthian envoy, who did not hesitate to condemn the evils of tyranny [b].
Athens was not the only city to experiment with popular government. The decades between the sixth and fifth centuries were a time of lively debate on the various forms of constitution. One of the most interesting sources for the study of this debate is the so-called ‘dialogue on constitutions’ contained in the third book of Herodotus’ Histories. The dialogue is set in Susa, the capital of the Persian Empire, in September 522. A conspiracy of Persian notables has just deposed and killed Gaumata, a usurper who ruled Persia for a few months after the death of Smerdis, pretending to be the deceased sovereign. Herodotus says that after the assassination of Gaugamata, the leaders of the conspiracy, Otanes, Megabyzus and Darius, met to discuss what constitution should be adopted for the government of the empire. The three eventually chose monarchy, and Darius became king. Otanes, however, delivered a heartfelt celebration of popular rule, which he calls isonomia, the same name which Cleisthenes gave to his reforms. In fact, what Otanes proposes is a very Greek kind of popular regime, based on public debate, accountability and the use of lot to assign magistracies. It is extremely unlikely, to say the least, that such debate did take place in the forms and times described by Herodotus, but the dialogue is an important document of the international debate surrounding the new ideas of political equality [c].
[a] Hdt. 5.74–8: The new Athens, liberty and bravery
Cleomenes knew that the Athenians had wantonly insulted him in word and deeds, and so mustered an army from all the parts of Peloponnese. The purpose for collecting this army, although he did not make it public, was to take revenge upon the Athenian people and set up a tyranny under Isagoras, who had fled with him from the acropolis. Accordingly, Cleomenes marched into Eleusis with a large army, while the Boeotians, by a previously concerted plan, seized two villages on the Attic border, Oinos and Ysias, and the Chalcidians broke in from another point and laid waste the territory of Attica. The Athenians, finding themselves attacked from two sides, decided to engage the Spartans at Eleusis first, and confront the Boeotians and Chalcidians at a later time.
The troops were about to engage battle when the Corinthians, thinking that they were acting unjustly, turned back and withdrew. Later Demaratus, son of Ariston, the other Spartan king, did the same, although he had come from Sparta in shared command with Cleomenes and had never had any difference with him in the past. As a result of this dissension, a law was passed in Sparta to the effect that the two kings should not take part in a campaign together. Before then, both kings used to go with the army, whereas now one of the kings and one of the sons of Tyndarus should stay at home. Before then, they both had to offer their services and campaign with the army.
So, now at the Eleusis, when the other allies saw that the Spartan kings were in disagreement and the Corinthians had abandoned the campaign, they also withdrew and went home. This was the fourth time that the Dorians had marched into Attica; they had come twice as an invading force and twice to bring aid to the Athenian people: the first time was when they established a settlement in Megara. This expedition, as might correctly be said, took place under the reign of Codrus. The second and third times were when they moved from Sparta to drive out the Pisistratids. The fourth one was the present campaign, when Cleomenes led the Peloponnesians into Eleusis. This was the fourth Doric invasion of Attica. Once this campaign was so ingloriously aborted, the Athenians set off an army to punish the Chalcidians; the Boeotians came to the Euripus to help the Chalcidians, and as soon as the Athenians saw this Boeotian contingent, they resolved to attack them before the Chalcidians. The Athenians engaged in battle with the Boeotians and obtained a great victory, killing many of them and taking seven hundred prisoners. On the same day the Athenians crossed to Eubaea to deal with the Chalcidians. Having achieved another victory, they left four hundred settlers in the territory of the Horse-breeders, for this was the name given to the wealthy among the Chalcidians.
The prisoners taken in this battle and the captured Boeotians were kept in chains. After some time, however, they released them for a ransom of two minae, and the fetters in which the prisoners had been bound were hung up in the acropolis and were still there in my time, hanging from the wall scorched by the Persian fire, opposite the temple facing west. Furthermore, they dedicated the tithe of the ransom, and this money was used to build a four-horse chariot of copper, which stands on the left as one walks into the acropolis. The inscription reads as follows:
The sons of Athens, victorious in battle, bound the enemy in iron chains and quenched their pride, and offered these horses from the tenth of the spoils as a gift to Pallas Athena.2
Athens was growing powerful, proving that political equality (isegoria) is an excellent thing, not in one single respect but in all of them: for when they were oppressed by tyranny they were not more successful in war than any of their neighbours, but once they were released from their tyrants they became by far the first army of Greece. This demonstrates that as long as they were oppressed, like slaves working for a master, they were cowardly, but once they were set free, each of them was eager to be successful for himself.
This is what the Athenians had achieved. Afterwards, the Thebans, desiring to take revenge on the Athenians, sent to Delphi for advice. The priestess said that this was not possible, and ordered them to disclose the matter to the ‘Many-voiced’ and seek the aid of the ‘nearest’. When the envoys returned, an assembly was summoned and the response of the oracle was revealed to it. When the Thebans heard that they had to seek the aid of the ‘nearest’, they said: ‘If this is what we have to do, the peoples who dwell nearest to us are the Tanagrians, and the Coroneans and the Thespians. They have always been our allies in battle, gallantly bearing the efforts of war with us. Perhaps the oracle is telling us to seek their aid.’
[b] Hdt. 5.91–2: Sparta, Corinth and the emergence of democracy
When the Spartans acquired the oracles and saw that the Athenians were becoming more powerful and had no intention of obeying them, they realized that if the people of Attica remained free they would become as powerful as they were, but if they were held fast under a tyranny, they would be weak and prone to obedience. Sensing all this, the Spartans sent to recall Hippias, son of Pisistratus from Sigeum on the Hellespont, where the Pisistratids had sought refuge. When Hippias arrived, the Spartans sent for envoys from their allies, and addressed them as follows: ‘Allies, we recognize that we acted unadvisedly when, misled by false oracles, we drove out of their fatherland men who were our guests and had promised to subjugate Athens to us. Then we handed that city to an ungrateful lot, and as soon as they raised their heads in the liberty that we had given them, they wantonly insulted us and our king, and threw us out of their city. But now Athens has grown so proud and powerful, as their neighbours of Boeotia and Chalcidas have already realized at their cost, and others will soon too. Since we have made this mistake, we now ask for your help to take revenge upon them. On this account we have sent for Hippias and called you from your cities: let us unite our counsels and forces to bring him back to Athens and let us give back to him what we had taken from him.’
This is what the Spartans said, but their speech was not well received by the majority of the allies. While the others were keeping silence, Sosicles of Corinth spoke in the following terms: ‘Certainly, heaven will be beneath the earth, and earth above the heaven, and the men will be living in the sea and fishes where men used to live, if you, Spartans, are resolved to destroy regimes based on equality to restore tyranny in their place. Tyranny is the most unjust and murderous thing existing among men. If it seems to you a good thing to have the cities ruled by tyrants, you should set up a tyranny among yourselves first, and then seek to establish tyrants among the others. Coming from people like you, who have no experience of tyranny, and have always taken the utmost care lest Sparta may be subject to one, your request is an insult to your allies. For if you had the same experience of tyrannies as we have, you would be better advised on this matter than you are now.’
[c] Hdt. 3.80–3: A debate on the best form of constitution
Once the disorders had settled down and five days had passed, the insurgents against the Magi held a council to discuss the whole matter. At this meeting, words were spoken which some Greeks would consider incredible, but which were spoken nevertheless. Otanes demanded that power should be turned over to the Persian people: ‘It seems to me – he said – that we can no longer endure a single sovereign ruling over us, for this is not pleasant nor good. You have seen how far the arrogance of Cambyses has gone, and now you have experienced the arrogance of the Magus. How could monarchy ever be a convenient thing, since the ruler is allowed to do whatever he pleases without being accountable for anything? Even the best man on earth, once bestowed with that power, would be stirred to bizarre and unwonted thoughts: the good things at his disposal would make him arrogant, while envy is rooted in every man from birth. The man who is both envious and arrogant possesses the fullest form of evil: once his appetites have been satiated, arrogance and envy drive him to commit many wicked deeds. A monarch should be free from envy, because he possesses all good things, yet he behaves in the very opposite way towards his subjects. He is envious of the most notable men who flourish around him, and is fond of the basest among his fellow-citizens and is always glad to listen to slander. He is the most incongruous man of all. For if you admire him moderately, he is grieved because you are not giving him enough attention, but if you give him plenty of attention, he is grieved because you are a flatterer. But I still have worse things to say about him. The sovereign meddles with the ancestral customs of the city, and rapes women, and kills indiscriminately. On the other hand, popular rule has the most beautiful name of all: isonomia, equality before the law. Also, popular rule is immune from all the vices typical of monarchy: offices are assigned by lot, magistrates have to give account of their activity, and all decisions are taken through public deliberation. I therefore propose that we abolish monarchy and exalt the masses, for everything is possible for the many.’
This was the advice given by Otanes. But Megabyzus argued for oligarchy. He said: ‘I do agree with everything Otanes said about tyranny, but I think he deviates from the best advice when he urges you to give power to the masses. Nothing is more foolish and arrogant than the useless mob. For it cannot be tolerated that men are released from the arrogance of a tyrant to fall victim to the arrogance of the licentious mob. Whatever the tyrant does, he does with knowledge, but knowledge is impossible for the masses. How could they have knowledge those who have not learnt or seen by themselves what is best, but rush into the affairs of the city without thinking, like a flooding river? Let those who wish ill to Persia prefer democracy, but let us select the best men and give power to these. And we shall be among them, for it is among them that the best advice is likely to be found.’
This was the advice of Megabyzus.
Darius was the third to illustrate his opinion: ‘It seems to me that Megabyzus has said the right things about popular rule, but not about oligarchy. For if we were to choose, for argument’s sake, between the best form of democracy, oligarchy and monarchy, I say that monarchy would be by far the best. Nothing, as it seems, is better than the rule of the best man: using his best judgment, he will direct the populace without reproach, without revealing anything of the plans against enemies. In an oligarchy, there are many who strive to apply their virtue to the affairs of the community, every leading citizen wants to make his advice prevail, and this is the cause of great hatred between them, and this hatred leads to factional strife, and strife to violence, and violence brings about monarchy. This demonstrates how superior monarchy is. Then, when the people are in power, wicked things inevitably occur, and when wicked things against the common interest occur, the wicked are not divided by hatred, but are held together by strong friendships, for those who want to cause harm to the state, they do it together. This goes on until someone from the people rises up to stop these men, and so he gains the admiration of the populace, and being the object of their admiration, he also becomes their sovereign. This also demonstrates that monarchy is the best form of government.
To sum up: where did liberty come to us and from whom? From the people, from an oligarchy, or from a monarchy? Since we have been set free by one man, I think that we should maintain such kind of government. Besides this we should not obliterate the ancestral laws that are still in place: they are good and will not get better.’
The choice was between these three options, and four of the seven men favoured the last one. At this point Otanes, whose proposal of giving equality to the Persians had been defeated, spoke to them in these terms: ‘Companions, it is clear that one of us has to become king – either by lot, or by vote of the Persian people, or by some other system. I will not take part in this contest, for I have no desire to rule or be ruled. But I lay forth this condition for the withdrawal of my candidacy to the crown: that neither I nor any of my descendants shall be ruled by any of you.’ The others agreed on these terms. Otanes stood aside and did not take part in the contest, and up to this day his house is the only one to remain free, and is ruled only insofar it wants to be ruled, as long as they comply with the Persian laws.
19. Growing democracy, growing Athens: Democracy, naval mastery and urbanization
The campaigns against Cleomenes were the first important test of the new Athenian army. Equality, as observed by the Corinthians, enabled the Athenians to unleash their bravery and ambition, both within and outside the boundaries of continental Greece. In 499, the Athenians sent troops to Asia Minor in support of the anti-Persian revolt of the Greeks of Ionia. Initially the operation met with success. The Greek rebels went so far as to seize and burn the city of Sardis, the capital of the Persian satrapy of Lydia. In 497, however, the Persians went on the counteroffensive and three years later they obtained a decisive victory in a naval battle off the shores of Lade. In 490 the Persian commanders Datis and Artaphernes landed in Attica to punish the Athenians for their involvement in the revolt. The Persians made camp at Marathon, 40 kilometres northeast of the city of Athens, and there they engaged in battle with a greatly inferior contingent of Athenians and Plataeans. In one of the most glorious days of Greek history, the Athenians and their allies pushed back the men of Datis and Artaphernes, who withdrew to their ships. The Athenians had defeated the mighty Persian army and saved Greece from slavery.
The battle of Marathon had been won by the bravery, patriotism and discipline of the Athenian infantrymen, and by the tactical nous of their generals. All the ten strategoi were serving on the battlefield, rotating the supreme command of the army between them day by day. Athens acquired new international prestige, in Greece and beyond. The enthusiasm engendered by the victory at Marathon boosted the ambition of the Athenians. That momentous battle was a turning point in the history of Athens: the years immediately after the victory at Marathon were dense with important events, which would transform the face and the destiny of the city forever. Miltiades, one of the heroes of Marathon, was ostracized in 489, and so was, five years later, his political rival Xanthippus. In 493 a new vein of silver was found in the mines of Laurium. The original intention of the Athenians was to distribute this silver among the citizens, but Themistocles persuaded them to use it to finance the fitting of a new fleet for the war against the island of Aegina. The initiative of Themistocles marked the beginning of a completely new story: Athens was to become a city of sailors, and the face and identity of the city were to change forever.
The Athenians soon became the foremost naval power of Greece. On the eve of the second Persian invasion of Greece, Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to fit out a new fleet and challenge the Persians at sea off Salamis, while others were advising the Athenians to take more literally a response of the priestess of Delphi prophesying that Athens will be saved and build a ‘wooden wall’ around the acropolis [a]. Two years later, most of these galleys would make the backbone of the allied Greek fleet that defeated the Persians at the battle of Salamis, a small island 16 kilometres west of Attica. The commander-in-chief of the Greek forces was Themistocles himself. As the war against the Persians progressed and moved into the waters of Asia Minor, the role of the Athenians within the Greek coalition would become more and more relevant. The Spartan leadership was no longer undisputed. A turning point came after the naval battle of Mycale. This was another notable Greek naval victory, which brought the second Persian War to an end. This is at least the opinion of the Spartans, who decided to withdraw from the campaign. In fact, the Spartans were now worried by the steady growth of Athens (they did not want any city to have walls), and did not want to be stuck in the Persian Aegean any longer. Urged by the allies of Ionia, the Athenians took over the command of the operations. In the winter of 478 the Greeks seized the city of Sestus, in the Thracian Chersonese, one of the last standing Persian strongholds. The fall of Sestus encouraged the Greek cities of the area to revolt. The Greeks of Ionia and Chersonese who fought at Sestus would become the first nucleus of a new naval alliance led by the Athenians. The military alliance established to deal with the contingencies of the war became a permanent, political institution. All the members were required to contribute to the activities of the League; most of them were unwilling to provide ships and crews and preferred to supply money, which was used by the Athenians to strengthen their fleet and finance the city’s democratic apparatus. The treasury of the alliance was located at Delos, the seat of the pan-Ionian sanctuary of Apollo, and for this reason the alliance was known as the Delian League. As time went by, and the need for a permanent anti-Persian mobilization became less urgent, the league would progressively become an Athenian empire [b].
The Constitution of the Athenians offers a dense synthesis of the political repercussions of the historical transformations of the early-fifth century [c]. Under the political and military leadership of Themistocles and Aristides, and the moral guidance of the Areopagus, which somewhat tempered the democratic enthusiasm of the Athenians, the city became the greatest naval power of the Greek world. The naval development of Athens was to have deep repercussions on the social and political equilibrium of the polis. It would also transform the landscape of Attica and modify the balance between the asty and the countryside. The years following the end of the Persian Wars saw a rapid growth of the urban centre of Athens and of the port of the Piraeus; the city and the harbour were becoming more and more relevant to the wealth and power of Athens. Aristides urged his fellow citizens to abandon their farms – and the activities, and culture of the chora with them – to embrace the life of the asty. The unprecedented wealth stemming from the Aegean empire was essential to finance the new democratic machinery of the city. New offices were established which would provide an important source of income for the less fortunate Athenians.
The new daring and dynamic spirit of Athens was perfectly embodied by Themistocles [d]. The text of the decree proposed by Themistocles and approved by the Athenian assembly on the eve of the second Persian invasion has been preserved on a stele found in 1959 in the Peloponnesian district of Troezen [e].
[a] Hdt. 7.140–4: From the war between Athens and Aegina to the second Persian invasion; the mines of Laurium and the new Athenian fleet
The Athenians sent messengers to Delphi to ask for an oracle. Once they performed all the prescribed rites at the temple, they proceeded into the inner hall and sat there, and the priestess, whose name was Aristonice, gave them the following response:
Why are you lying there idle? Flee to the ends of the earth!
Flee from your houses! Flee from the circle of the citadel of Athens!
For the head won’t remain in its place, nor will the body, nor the feet beneath, nor the hands, nor what is in between. Everything is misery,
For fire and the swift Ares, advancing on a Syrian chariot, will bring you down.
He’ll destroy many a fine fortress, not yours alone.
He’ll consign many shrines of the immortal gods to the raging fire.
They are sweating, as they stand, and quivering for fear of the enemy,
Their roofs are pouring with black blood, foreseeing their misery and pain.
But now go. Leave the sanctuary. Spread courage over your ills.
The Athenian ambassadors were quite dismayed at the words of the priestess, and gave themselves up, hearing the disgraces that she foretold. At this point Timon, son of Androbolus, one of the most eminent men in Delphi, advised them to take the olive-branch of supplication and approach again the oracle, as suppliants. The Athenians followed his advice and said: ‘Lord, have mercy for these symbols of supplication that we bring you, and give us a better response for our fatherland, or we won’t leave your shrine, and we’ll stay here until we die.’
At this point the priestess gave them this second oracle:
Pallas wants to propitiate Zeus the Olympian, to no avail.
In vain does she pray to him, with many words and cunning wisdom.
But now I’ll speak to you again, with unalterable words:
Everything which is kept in the sacred borders of Cecrops will be taken and lost,
And so will the lairs of sacred Cithaeron.
But the far-seeing Zeus will leave a wooden wall to Athena,
This will be an unravaged stronghold for your and your sons.
Don’t wait for the host of cavalrymen and infantrymen coming from the continent.
Don’t stand still, but turn your back and withdraw from the enemy,
Then one day you’ll be face to face against them.
O divine Salamis, you will kill many a woman’s son,
When the corn of Demeter is still scattered, or when it is gathered in.
This response seemed to them to be much more propitious than the previous one, and so the ambassadors, having written it down, returned to Athens. Once they left Delphi and revealed the oracle to the people, many different interpretations were proposed. Two in particular were in complete contrast with each other: some of the older men were saying that the god was telling them that the acropolis would be spared, for in ancient times the acropolis was hedged round by a thorn-edge. This fence, according to their reading of the oracle, was the ‘wooden wall’. Others on the other hand said that the god was in fact referring to the ships, and that his order was to equip them and forget about the rest. But those who believed that the wooden wall was the ships were baffled by the two final lines of the oracle, ‘O divine Salamis, you will kill many a woman’s son, When the corn of Demeter is still scattered, or when it is gathered in’. These words they could not interpret clearly, for the interpreters of oracles assumed that they meant that they would be defeated at Salamis after offering battle there.
Now, there was a man in Athens, Themistocles, son of Neocles, who had recently risen to prominence. This man claimed that the soothsayers had not given the correct interpretation of the oracle, and said that if those verses really referred to the Athenians, then the god would have used less gentle words, calling Salamis ‘cruel’ instead of ‘divine’. So, if interpreted correctly, the oracle was meant to speak not to the Athenians, but to their enemies. His advice therefore was to prepare for a naval battle, and the ships would be their wooden wall. When Themistocles exposed this interpretation, the Athenians judged him to be a better interpreter of oracles than the soothsayers, who would not have let them prepare for the naval battle, or offer any resistance at all, but leave the territory of Attica and settle somewhere else.
The advice of Themistocles had also prevailed on another occasion. The Athenians had a large amount of money in the public treasury owing to the revenues of the mines of Laurium, and each citizen was to take a share of ten drachmae from this money. Themistocles however persuaded them not to distribute the money in this manner, but to use it to build two hundred new galleys for the war against Aegina. The outbreak of this war saved Greece, because it compelled the Athenians to become sailors. In fact, these ships would not be employed for the purpose for which they had been built but would later serve the Greeks in their time of need. These ships had already been built and were ready to be employed. Now the Athenians needed to build others. Upon receiving the oracle, the Athenians resolved, in obedience to the god, to await the attack of the barbarians who had invaded Greece with the whole of their fleet, together with the other Greeks willing to join in the struggle.
[b] [Arist.], Ath. Const. 22.7-24.3: Silver, fleet and democracy; Aristides and the birth of the Delian League
In the archonship of Nicomedes, following the discovery of the silver mines at Maronaea, whose working gave the city a profit of 100 talents, some people advised that the money should be distributed among the populace, but Themistocles prevented this. In fact, he did not say how the money should be used, but recommended that the silver should be lent to the 100 wealthiest citizens, giving one talent to each of them, and if they employed it in a manner profitable for the city, the state would make a profit. Otherwise, the borrowers would have to return the money. Having obtained the money on these terms, Themistocles used it to prepare a fleet of one hundred triremes, each of the borrowers building one, and with these ships the Athenians would later fight at Salamis against the barbarians. It was in this period that Aristides son of Lysimachus was ostracized. Three years later in the archonship of Hypsechides, the Athenians allowed all the ostracized citizens to return, owing to the expedition of Xerxes. From that moment on, the Athenians drew a line from Geraestus to Scyllaeum and resolved that the ostracized should not live within this border, under penalty of the permanent loss of citizenship.
This is how the city had progressed so far, growing by little and little as democracy advanced; but after the Persian Wars the council of the Areopagus became powerful again and held the government of the city. Now, the council had not gained the leadership in reason of any public ordinance, but because it had been responsible for the victory at the battle of Salamis. For while the generals were in great doubt about the situation, and publicly commanded that each citizen should look after his own safety, the council made a fund available and gave eight drachmas a head to embark them on the ships. For this reason the council came to surpass the general in the esteem of the citizens, and Athens was well governed at that time. For in those years it so happened that the Athenians gained the respect of the Greeks and obtained the hegemony of the sea against the will of the Spartans by devoting themselves to the exercise of arms. The leaders of the people at that time were Aristides, son of Lysimachus, and Themistocles, son of Neocles. The latter was especially devoted to becoming skilled in the affairs of war, the former in those of politics, and to surpass everybody else in justice: the Athenians therefore employed the one as a general and the other as a counsellor. In spite of their diverging political views, these two men carried out together the rebuilding of the long walls. It was Aristides however who urged the Ionians to secede from the alliance with Sparta, taking advantage of the discredit of the Spartans caused by the actions of Pausanias. Two years after the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes, Aristides made the first assessment of the tribute for each city and and took the oath of the Ionians, when they swore to share the same friends and the same enemies with the Athenians, and ratified the oath by casting the iron lumps into the sea.
After these events, as the city had grown confident and a considerable amount of money had been accumulated, Aristides took to advising the citizens to aim at the hegemony and to leave their farms and live in the city, where everybody would be able to make a living, some by serving in the army, some by serving in the garrisons or by taking care of the public affairs, and by these means they would become the leaders of the Greeks. Having acquired the leadership as advised by Aristides, the Athenians took to treating their allies despotically, all except the Chians, the Lesbians and the Samians, whom they held as guardians of the empire, and allowed to maintain their constitutions and to continue to rule the subjects which happened to be under their power. Aristides also advised them to create a generous food-supply for the populace, and so it occurred that more than twenty thousand men were living on the revenues and taxes paid by the allies: there were 6000 jurors, 1600 archers and 1200 cavalrymen, 500 councilmen, 500 guardians of the docks, and also 50 watchmen in the acropolis, and as many as 7000 officials at home and 700 abroad. And then, later on, when they went to war with the Spartans, 2500 hoplites, 20 guard-ships and other ships to collect the tribute, with crews amounting to 200 units; and also the prytaneum, orphans, and warders of prisoners, all these received public funds: all these were maintained on public funds.
[c] Thuc. 1.138.3: A portrait of Themistocles
Themistocles was a man who gave the strongest proofs of his natural qualities, and this makes him especially worthy of admiration. In fact, owing to a natural ability which was not the product of study or experience, he was able to formulate in the briefest time the best judgement on the events of the immediate present as well as those of the most distant future. Themistocles could expound the affairs which he had in hand, as well as express an absolutely competent judgement on those of which he had no experience. Also, he could discern in the clearest terms whether any action was turning for the better or the worse when its outcome was still uncertain. In sum, Themistoces, with the power of his natural qualities and the swiftness of his deliberation, surpassed all men in devising offhand what should be done.
[d] Fornara 55 = M&L 23 = SEG XXIV.444, XXVIII.400, XXIX.376, XXX.384, XXXI.332, XXXII.388, XXXIII.308: The decree of Themistocles
In the name of the gods.
Decree of the Boule and the People.
Motion proposed by Themistocles son of Neocles of the deme of Phrearrhioi.
The city shall be entrusted to Athena, the protectress of the Athenians, and all the other gods, for protection and defence against the Barbarian, on behalf of the country.
All the Athenians and the foreigners who live in Athens shall place their children and their women in Troezen under the protection of Theseus, the founder of the land. The elderly and the movable property shall be brought to Salamis for safety. The treasurers and the priestesses are to remain on the acropolis to guard the properties of the gods.
All the other Athenians and those aliens who have come of age shall embark on the two hundred ships which have been equipped, and shall resist the barbarian for the sake of their liberty and that of the other Greeks, jointly with the Spartans, Corinthians, Aeginetans and the others who are willing to have a share in the danger.
Beginning tomorrow, the generals shall appoint two hundred captains, one for each ship, from those who are owners of both land and homes in Athens and who have legitimate children. The captains shall not be older than fifty years and will be assigned by lot to a ship. The generals shall also enlist marines in the number ten for each ship, from men aged between twenty and thirty, and four archers. When they appoint the captains by lot, the generals shall also appoint by lot the special officers for each ship. A list shall also be drawn of the rowers, ship by ship, on notice boards: the Athenians shall be selected from the lexiarchic registers, and the aliens from the list of names registered with the polemarch. The generals shall write up their names, arrange them by divisions, up to a total of two hundred divisions, each consisting of up to one hundred rowers. The generals shall also attach to each division the name of the warship, captain and specialist officers, so that they may know on what warship each division shall embark.
Once the assignment of all the divisions has been completed, and they have been allotted to the warships, all the two hundred warships will be manned by order of the council and the generals, after they have performed the sacrifices to appease the almighty Zeus, Athena, Victory and Poseidon the Securer. Once the manning of the ships has been completed, one hundred will be dispatched to bring assistance to the Artemisium in Euboea, and the other hundred shall lie at anchor and guard the country around Salamis and the rest of Attica,
To ensure that all Athenians will ward off the barbarians in a spirit of concord, those who have received the ten-year ban shall leave for Salamis and remain there until the people come to a decision about them. Those who have been deprived of citizenship shall have their rights restored.
[e] Thuc. 1.89–96: The end of the Persian Wars and the birth of the Athenian empire
It is in the following manner that the Athenians reached the state of affairs in which they became powerful. After the Persians withdrew from Europe, having been defeated by land and sea by the Greeks, and those who had sought refuge to Micale on their ships were annihilated, Leontychidas, the King of Sparta, who was the commander of the Greek forces at Micale, resolved to return home with the allies from Peloponnese. But the Athenians and the allies from Ionia and the Hellespont, who had already revolted from the King, remained, and laid siege to Sestus, which was held by the Persians. The allies wintered there and when the Persians abandoned Sestus, they occupied it.
After these events, they sailed away from the Hellespont, each returning to their cities. As for the Athenians, as soon as the barbarians had withdrawn from their territory, they immediately began to carry over their children, their wives and all the property which had been left behind from the places where they had brought them for safety, and prepared to rebuild the city and the walls. For only small sections of the wall perimeter were still standing, and most of the houses were lying in ruins. Only a few had been spared, and these were the ones where the Persian notables had taken up their quarters.
The Spartans sensed what was going to happen, and so they dispatched an embassy to Athens, in part because they did not want to see Athens or any other city have a wall, but especially because they were urged to do so by their allies, who were worried by the size of the fleet recently acquired by the Athenians, and by the daring spirit they had displayed in the course of the Persian wars. Accordingly, the Spartans urged the Athenians not to rebuild their walls: rather, they should join them in demolishing the walls of the cities outside Peloponnese that were still standing. The ambassadors, however, made no mention of the real reason of their mission, or of the suspicions which had prompted it. Instead, they told them that, if the barbarians were to return again, they would not find any stronghold to use as their base, as they had lately done with Thebes. Also, they told them that Peloponnese was large enough for all, both as a place of safety and a base for operations.
After the Spartans said this, Themistocles advised the Athenians to dismiss them at once, on the understanding that they send an embassy to Sparta to discuss the matter. Furthermore, Themistocles told them that they should send him to Sparta immediately. As for the other ambassadors appointed as his colleagues, they should not send them to Sparta immediately, but wait until they had raised the wall to sufficient height for defensive purposes. All the population, even women and children, were to contribute to the building of the wall, without sparing any edifice public or private or public, which could be used to complete the work. All of them should be thrown down.
Having given these instructions, Themistocles said that he would personally take care of the matter in Sparta, and then departed. Once in Sparta, Themistocles did not go to meet the city’s magistrates, but made excuses and tried to gain time. And whenever some of the authorities asked why he did not appear at the assembly, he said that he was waiting for his colleagues, who had been delayed by some undeferrable business. However, he said that he expected them to arrive soon, and in fact was surprised that they were not already there.
The Spartans trusted Themistocles because he was bound to them by friendship, but when other people arrived from Athens all clearly indicating that the rebuilding of the wall was underway and that it had already reached a certain height, they did not know how to disbelieve those reports. Once he realized what was going on, Themistocles bade them not to be misled by those rumours, but to send some reputable men to Athens to examine the situation there and give a trustful report on it. So the Spartans sent their observers, and Themistocles secretly sent a message to Athens concerning these men, giving orders to detain them as covertly as possible and not let them go until they had themselves had returned, for by that time he had been joined by his fellow-ambassadors: Abronichus, son of Lysicles, and Aristides, son of Lysimachus. These had come with the news that the construction of the walls was sufficiently advanced. In fact, Themistocles was afraid that the Spartans, if they heard what was going on, would not let them go. So the Athenians detained the Spartan envoys in accordance with his dispositions, while Themistocles had a meeting with the Spartans and at last openly told them that the rebuilding of the city’s wall had reached a stage sufficient for the protection of its inhabitants. For the future, if the Spartans and their allies intended to send embassies to Athens, they should do so on the assumption that the Athenians could discern the common interest and their own. When the Athenians had resolved to leave their city and embark on their ships, they had taken that bold decision without consulting with them. On the other hand, whenever they had taken counsel with the Spartans, they had proved to be second to none in the exercise of discernment. The Athenians had thought it fit that the city had a wall in the better interest of their city and their allies. For, he said, it would not be possible to have equal weight in the common resolutions of the allies without having equal military power. Therefore, either all the members of the confederacy should be without walls, or the present resolution of the Athenians should be considered to be correct.
The Spartans, as they heard this, did not give any open sign of anger towards the Athenians, for in truth they had sent the embassy to Athens not to obstruct but to assist them in their decisions. Furthermore, at the time they were still well disposed towards the Athenians owing to the spirit with which they had fought against the Persians; still, they felt greatly frustrated at the failure of their purpose, even though they did not show it. By all means, the respective embassies returned home without making any formal remonstration.
In this way the Athenians walled their city in a short time; and even today it is clear that the work was completed in haste, for the foundations of the wall are laid of all possible kinds of stones, and in some places these have not even been wrought as to fit together, but just placed in the order in which the various workers brought them. A number of columns from tombs and engraved stones were also built into the wall. The perimeter of the city was extended in all directions and so in their haste they used whatever building materials they could find. Themistocles also persuaded them to complete the walls of the Piraeus, the building of which had begun in the year of his archonship, for Themistocles thought that its three natural harbours made it a particularly fine site, and that by becoming sailors the Athenians would have made a big step forwards to establish their power. In fact, it was Themistocles who first ventured to tell them to apply themselves to the sea, and so he immediately helped them to lay the foundations of their empire. Following his advice, the Athenians built the walls around the Piraeus of the thickness that can still be seen, for two wagons carrying stones could meet and pass each other. Between the walls there was no rubble or mortar, but large stones hewn square and fitted together, cramped to each other on the outside with iron clamps and lead. The walls were completed only to half of height which had been originally planned. For Themistocles wanted to ward off the assaults of the enemy by the thickness and height of the wall, his idea being that a small garrison of invalids was sufficient to defend it, leaving the others available for service in the fleet. Themistocles devoted his utmost attention to the navy, for in my opinion he saw that for the King’s army it was easier to make approach by sea than by land. Also, he thought that the Piraeus was more strategic than the upper city, and often advised the Athenians, if one day they would be pressed by land, to come down to the Piraeus and resist all their enemies with their fleet.
Thus in this way the Athenians built their walls and all the other fortifications immediately in the aftermath of the Persian Wars.
In the meantime, while Sparta was still the supreme power in Greece, Pausanias son of Cleombrotus was dispatched from Sparta as commander of the Greeks with 20 ships from Peloponnese. Thirty ships of the Athenians, and a number of other allies were also sailing with him. They made an expedition against Cyprus and subdued most of the island. Then they sailed against Byzantium, which was held by the Persians, and forced it to surrender.
Pausanias however had already become violent and so he had become odious to the other Greeks, in particular the Ionians and those who had been recently liberated from the King. These took to call on the Athenians begging them as their kinsmen to assume the leadership and thus prevent Pausanias. The Athenians accepted their proposals, and were determined to put all their attention on the matter to make sure that they would not endure any other act of arrogance from Pausanias, and to settle everything else as it seemed best for their interests.
In the meantime, the Spartans recalled Pausanias wishing to interrogate him about the reports which they had heard. For the Greeks travelling to Sparta accused him of many wrong-doings, saying that he exercised his power more in the manner of a tyrant than a general. As it happened, Pausanias was recalled at the same time as the hatred mounting against him was driving all the allies over to the Athenians, with the exception of the Peloponnesian troops. Upon his return to Sparta, Pausanias was held to account for his personal wrong-doings. As for the most serious accusations, he was acquitted of any misconduct. One of the main charges against him was that of Medism, and this seems to have been well documented. At any rate, the Spartans sent him back as commander. Instead they dispatched Dorcis and some others at the head of a small force, but the allies did not intend to yield him the supreme command. Sensing this, they withdrew and the Spartans did not send out others to replace them. In fact, the Spartans were afraid that anyone whom they would send may be corrupted, as could be seen in Pausanias. The Spartans were also willing to disengage from the Persian wars. They thought that the Athenians were sufficiently competent to lead the operations and at that time were well disposed toward them.
Having obtained the leadership with the consent of the allies owing to their hatred for Pausanias, the Athenians made an assessment of the tribute both for the cities which were to provide the money for the war against the Persians and for those which were to supply ships. Their avowed goal was to retaliate for what they had suffered from the King by ravaging his territory. Then, for the first time, the Athenians established the office of Ellenotamoi, or ‘Treasurers of the Greeks’. These were responsible for receiving the phoros, or ‘tribute’, as the collected money was called. The first tribute was assessed at four hundred and sixty talents; the treasury was at Delos, where the members of the league held their meetings.