What do you think?
Rate this book
The Classical Athenian Democracy
The Greeks had a word for it, and the word was demokratia, a compound of demos ('the people') and kratos ('power or rule'). But it is significant that the first occurrence of the word in surviving Greek literature is in Herodotus' History, which he was writing during the third quarter of the fifth century BC.
It was perhaps coined in the period following the reforms of the last decade of the sixth century, which later won fame for Cleisthenes as 'the man who gave the Athenians their democracy'. In 431 BC Pericles could claim that the Athenian system of government was unique, and an example to every other society in Greece: "It is called a 'democracy' because it subserves the interests not of a privileged few but of the bulk of its citizens.
Nevertheless, the democracy which existed in Athens for the two hundred years which followed the reforms of Cleisthenes differed in important respects from the democracies under which we live today. It is the object of this critical study to explain to the modern reader what the institutions of the classical Athenian democracy were, how they worked, and what assumptions underlay them.
It is principally concerned with the fully developed democracy of the post-Ephialtic period, but a chapter is devoted to tracing the broad development of the Athenian constitution from the reforms of Solon in the early sixth century to those of Ephialtes in the late 460s, so that the developed democracy can be seen in its proper historical context.
Stockton incorporates recent important work by historians, epigraphists, and archaeologists into his study, which is easily accessible to sixth-form and first-year undergraduate students as well as interested general readers since all Greek is translated, all difficult terminology is explained, and full suggestions for further reading made in endnotes to each chapter.
It was perhaps coined in the period following the reforms of the last decade of the sixth century, which later won fame for Cleisthenes as 'the man who gave the Athenians their democracy'. In 431 BC Pericles could claim that the Athenian system of government was unique, and an example to every other society in Greece: "It is called a 'democracy' because it subserves the interests not of a privileged few but of the bulk of its citizens.
Nevertheless, the democracy which existed in Athens for the two hundred years which followed the reforms of Cleisthenes differed in important respects from the democracies under which we live today. It is the object of this critical study to explain to the modern reader what the institutions of the classical Athenian democracy were, how they worked, and what assumptions underlay them.
It is principally concerned with the fully developed democracy of the post-Ephialtic period, but a chapter is devoted to tracing the broad development of the Athenian constitution from the reforms of Solon in the early sixth century to those of Ephialtes in the late 460s, so that the developed democracy can be seen in its proper historical context.
Stockton incorporates recent important work by historians, epigraphists, and archaeologists into his study, which is easily accessible to sixth-form and first-year undergraduate students as well as interested general readers since all Greek is translated, all difficult terminology is explained, and full suggestions for further reading made in endnotes to each chapter.
- GenresHistory
214 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
34 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 14, 2016
Not bad. A nice overview of the Athenian Democracy from its inception to its end. The book is concerned with political matters, accurate description of governmental organization, and the extent to which the cited Greek authors approved or disapproved of the Athenian Democracy (a sometimes quizzical pursuit).
Bad things first: The book at times gets caught up in minutiae and seems to repeat details about the roles and progressions of government bodies. The book is from 1990 and it shows it. Sometimes, Stockton dwells entirely too long on the opinion of the Greek authors he is citing of Democracy as if to redeem their political beliefs.
Good things: Stockton makes a compelling case for the uniqueness of Athenian Democracy. At times the book is very engaging because he makes such a compelling case for its uniqueness, eschewing its general effectiveness and instead focusing on its contextual effectiveness. In this respect, the pro or antidemocratic sentiments of Greek authors is relevant and interesting.
Other things: The book is roughly composed chronologically, but it also skips around so it can be hard to follow. For the most part its treatment of any of the particulars of the rise of Athenian Democracy and its conduct is well thought out. There are some funny references to Rome, and most of the references (to other classical civilizations or modern institutions) are insightful. Interestingly, he makes the case that the author of the Old Oligarch is a young man trying out his mettle in evaluating the Athenian government. I completely disagree with his evaluation of Plato, however.
Quotes:
On enrolling in the Athenian Democracy as a citizen:
"An Athenian’s title to Athenian citizenship rested on his enrollment as a member of one of the 139 demes of Attica; from that his membership of the trittys and the tribe to which he belongs followed automatically, as did his right to attend and vote and speak in the ecclesia and his eligibility to hold “national” office. A male Athenian had his name duly entered in the Deme Register (lexiarchikon grammateion) when he reached the age of eighteen; he was then presented to the demesmen, who had to decide under oath whether he had reached the prescribed age and whether he was otherwise qualified. Until Pericles’ law on citizenship in 451/50, he had to be the legitimate offspring of an Athenian father and a free-born mother, who might herself be a non-Athenian by birth (the mother of the illustrious Cimon, for example, was a non-Athenian); but thereafter, apart from a temporary reversion to this less restrictive criterion during the last years of the Peloponnesian War, both father and mother had to be of citizen birth. An applicant who was rejected by the demesmen could appeal to the courts (but at the risk of being sold as a slave if his appeal failed); they were empowered to reverse the deme’s decision if they so decided, and order the appellant’s enrollment in the Deme Register. Finally, the Council of Five Hundred reviewed and confirmed the enrollments, but had the power to disqualify anyone they deemed unqualified and to fine the demesmen who had enrolled him.”
On Democratic Athens vs. Republican Rome:
"Classical Athens quite simply had no “government” as we understand that term. Its constitution made no provision for one. That was not simply the consequence of the system of limited tenure and collegiality so far as concerned her public offices: Republican Rome similarly confined the tenure of public office within annual limits, and laid great stress on collegiality too. However, Rome’s magistracies were neither paid nor chosen at random from the bulk of her citizenry,and appointed by a system of suffrage which was most of the time effectively so controlled and manipulated as to ensure the election of members of the wealthiest class alone, with the result that groups of like-minded men were able to concert their political influence and interests over a period of time so as to ensure that the “right” men were elected and the “right” executive actions were taken. Not only that, the authority and the powers of Rome’s magistrates (especially those of the highest offices like the consuls and the praetors, and the promagistrates who had charge of provinces and armies) were both wide and marked by considerable discretionary independence, and they were immune from prosecution while they were in office. Furthermore, the Roman Senate, which was composed of magistrates and ex-magistrates, was the great council of state to which the annual magistrates turned for guidance and advice, and once admitted its members held their places in it for life; the Senate enjoyed considerable powers in its own right, many of its decrees (in financial matters especially) required no subsequent ratification by any larger body, and it was only rarely that proposals were presented to a popular assembly without their having received the prior approval of the Senate. There was no equivalent of the boule to prepare business for the people. Semi-formal public-meetings (contiones) could be summoned by magistrates at which leading men argued the pros and cons of a particular proposal, but the ordinary citizen had no opportunity to get up and address the meeting. The popular assemblies, which were nominally sovereign, could meet only when summoned by a duly qualified magistrate, and could only vote Yes or No to proposals which were presented to them, with no right to debate or amend them. By the late Republic, as its territory extended, at first much and later all of Italy south of the River Po was absorbed within the Roman state, and in consequence most of the ordinary citizens found it impossible to make the long journey to Rome to vote. The various communities of Italy were effectively dominated by their local ruling class. The most senior officers of state were elected by an assembly which was overwhelmingly weighted in favour of the better-off citizens. The courts which sat in judgment on all the most serious cases, including charges of misconduct in public office, were drawn from members of the two highest classes, the Senators themselves and the Knights.”
Bad things first: The book at times gets caught up in minutiae and seems to repeat details about the roles and progressions of government bodies. The book is from 1990 and it shows it. Sometimes, Stockton dwells entirely too long on the opinion of the Greek authors he is citing of Democracy as if to redeem their political beliefs.
Good things: Stockton makes a compelling case for the uniqueness of Athenian Democracy. At times the book is very engaging because he makes such a compelling case for its uniqueness, eschewing its general effectiveness and instead focusing on its contextual effectiveness. In this respect, the pro or antidemocratic sentiments of Greek authors is relevant and interesting.
Other things: The book is roughly composed chronologically, but it also skips around so it can be hard to follow. For the most part its treatment of any of the particulars of the rise of Athenian Democracy and its conduct is well thought out. There are some funny references to Rome, and most of the references (to other classical civilizations or modern institutions) are insightful. Interestingly, he makes the case that the author of the Old Oligarch is a young man trying out his mettle in evaluating the Athenian government. I completely disagree with his evaluation of Plato, however.
Quotes:
On enrolling in the Athenian Democracy as a citizen:
"An Athenian’s title to Athenian citizenship rested on his enrollment as a member of one of the 139 demes of Attica; from that his membership of the trittys and the tribe to which he belongs followed automatically, as did his right to attend and vote and speak in the ecclesia and his eligibility to hold “national” office. A male Athenian had his name duly entered in the Deme Register (lexiarchikon grammateion) when he reached the age of eighteen; he was then presented to the demesmen, who had to decide under oath whether he had reached the prescribed age and whether he was otherwise qualified. Until Pericles’ law on citizenship in 451/50, he had to be the legitimate offspring of an Athenian father and a free-born mother, who might herself be a non-Athenian by birth (the mother of the illustrious Cimon, for example, was a non-Athenian); but thereafter, apart from a temporary reversion to this less restrictive criterion during the last years of the Peloponnesian War, both father and mother had to be of citizen birth. An applicant who was rejected by the demesmen could appeal to the courts (but at the risk of being sold as a slave if his appeal failed); they were empowered to reverse the deme’s decision if they so decided, and order the appellant’s enrollment in the Deme Register. Finally, the Council of Five Hundred reviewed and confirmed the enrollments, but had the power to disqualify anyone they deemed unqualified and to fine the demesmen who had enrolled him.”
On Democratic Athens vs. Republican Rome:
"Classical Athens quite simply had no “government” as we understand that term. Its constitution made no provision for one. That was not simply the consequence of the system of limited tenure and collegiality so far as concerned her public offices: Republican Rome similarly confined the tenure of public office within annual limits, and laid great stress on collegiality too. However, Rome’s magistracies were neither paid nor chosen at random from the bulk of her citizenry,and appointed by a system of suffrage which was most of the time effectively so controlled and manipulated as to ensure the election of members of the wealthiest class alone, with the result that groups of like-minded men were able to concert their political influence and interests over a period of time so as to ensure that the “right” men were elected and the “right” executive actions were taken. Not only that, the authority and the powers of Rome’s magistrates (especially those of the highest offices like the consuls and the praetors, and the promagistrates who had charge of provinces and armies) were both wide and marked by considerable discretionary independence, and they were immune from prosecution while they were in office. Furthermore, the Roman Senate, which was composed of magistrates and ex-magistrates, was the great council of state to which the annual magistrates turned for guidance and advice, and once admitted its members held their places in it for life; the Senate enjoyed considerable powers in its own right, many of its decrees (in financial matters especially) required no subsequent ratification by any larger body, and it was only rarely that proposals were presented to a popular assembly without their having received the prior approval of the Senate. There was no equivalent of the boule to prepare business for the people. Semi-formal public-meetings (contiones) could be summoned by magistrates at which leading men argued the pros and cons of a particular proposal, but the ordinary citizen had no opportunity to get up and address the meeting. The popular assemblies, which were nominally sovereign, could meet only when summoned by a duly qualified magistrate, and could only vote Yes or No to proposals which were presented to them, with no right to debate or amend them. By the late Republic, as its territory extended, at first much and later all of Italy south of the River Po was absorbed within the Roman state, and in consequence most of the ordinary citizens found it impossible to make the long journey to Rome to vote. The various communities of Italy were effectively dominated by their local ruling class. The most senior officers of state were elected by an assembly which was overwhelmingly weighted in favour of the better-off citizens. The courts which sat in judgment on all the most serious cases, including charges of misconduct in public office, were drawn from members of the two highest classes, the Senators themselves and the Knights.”
January 18, 2026
"Despite that, until recently there was a widespread tendency to talk about oligarchs and an 'oligarchic party' in post-Ephialtic Athens... [yet] It was only in the wake of the massive disaster at Syracuse in 413 that anti-democrats could even begin to envisage the subversion of the deomocrac as a practicable objective; and even then those extremists had to take care to put down a thick smoke-screen to concela their true objective so as to have any hope of securing the support of what we might call 'moderate' Athenians. When we see the oligarchic revolutionaries of 411 themselves acknowledging the widespread unpalatability of oligarchy at Athens, who are we to question or contradict them?" (142)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews