What do you think?
Rate this book
Democracy: A Life
Ancient Greece first coined the concept of "democracy", yet almost every major ancient Greek thinker-from Plato and Aristotle onwards- was ambivalent towards or even hostile to democracy in any form. The explanation for this is quite the elite perceived majority power as tantamount to a dictatorship of the proletariat.
In ancient Greece there can be traced not only the rudiments of modern democratic society but the entire Western tradition of anti-democratic thought. In Democracy , Paul Cartledge provides a detailed history of this ancient political system. In addition, by drawing out the salient differences between ancient and modern forms of democracy he enables a richer understanding of both.
Cartledge contends that there is no one "ancient Greek democracy" as pure and simple as is often believed. Democracy surveys the emergence and development of Greek politics, the invention of political theory, and-intimately connected to the latter- the birth of democracy, first at Athens in c. 500 BCE and then at its greatest flourishing in the Greek world 150 years later. Cartledge then traces the decline of genuinely democratic Greek institutions at the hands of the Macedonians and-subsequently and decisively-the Romans. Throughout, he sheds light on the variety of democratic practices in the classical world as well as on their similarities to and dissimilarities from modern democratic forms, from the American and French revolutions to contemporary political thought. Authoritative and accessible, Cartledge's book will be regarded as the best account of ancient democracy and its long afterlife for many years to come.
In ancient Greece there can be traced not only the rudiments of modern democratic society but the entire Western tradition of anti-democratic thought. In Democracy , Paul Cartledge provides a detailed history of this ancient political system. In addition, by drawing out the salient differences between ancient and modern forms of democracy he enables a richer understanding of both.
Cartledge contends that there is no one "ancient Greek democracy" as pure and simple as is often believed. Democracy surveys the emergence and development of Greek politics, the invention of political theory, and-intimately connected to the latter- the birth of democracy, first at Athens in c. 500 BCE and then at its greatest flourishing in the Greek world 150 years later. Cartledge then traces the decline of genuinely democratic Greek institutions at the hands of the Macedonians and-subsequently and decisively-the Romans. Throughout, he sheds light on the variety of democratic practices in the classical world as well as on their similarities to and dissimilarities from modern democratic forms, from the American and French revolutions to contemporary political thought. Authoritative and accessible, Cartledge's book will be regarded as the best account of ancient democracy and its long afterlife for many years to come.
416 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2016
72 people are currently reading
1375 people want to read
About the author
Paul Cartledge
69 books251 followersPaul Anthony Cartledge is the 1st A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture at Cambridge University, having previously held a personal chair in Greek History at Cambridge. He was educated at St Paul's School & New College, Oxford where he took his 1st degree & completed his doctoral thesis in Spartan archaeology in 1975 under Prof. Sir John Boardman. After a period at the University of Warwick he moved in 10/79 to Cambridge University where he's a fellow of Clare College.
He's a world expert on Athens & Sparta in the Classical Age & has been described as a Laconophile. He was chief historical consultant for the BBC TV series The Greeks & the Channel 4 series The Spartans, presented by Bettany Hughes. He's also a holder of the Gold Cross of the Order of Honour & an Honorary Citizen of modern Sparta. Besides the Leventis Professorship, he holds a visiting Global Distinguished Professorship at New York University, funded by the Greek Parliament.
He's a world expert on Athens & Sparta in the Classical Age & has been described as a Laconophile. He was chief historical consultant for the BBC TV series The Greeks & the Channel 4 series The Spartans, presented by Bettany Hughes. He's also a holder of the Gold Cross of the Order of Honour & an Honorary Citizen of modern Sparta. Besides the Leventis Professorship, he holds a visiting Global Distinguished Professorship at New York University, funded by the Greek Parliament.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
March 26, 2016
In all honesty, I don’t find Cartledge an easy read, having started, and struggled, with The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others as an undergrad. Likely, this says more about me than him. He has a rather terse style, seeming to write with precision, rather than entertainment, in mind. It is, I think, a reflection of the incredible breadth of knowledge of the author and his determination to get every bit of it into his work. In person, he comes into his own. I have been lucky enough to hear Professor Cartledge speak on several occasions, most often as part of a small group in a section of history enthusiasts in Heffers, but also on his guest spots on Radio 4’s ‘In Our Time’, during which any subject raised or offhand comment offered by another speaker or audience member elicits a fascinating response.
In this book, all his considerable knowledge is brought to bear on the history and varied forms of Democracy, from its inception to modern day formats, and all the multifaceted adaptations in-between. Cartledge offers or refers to extant evidence throughout, from personal translations of ancient texts, to extensively detailed descriptions of artefacts and their history, and wonderfully clear images of coinage (in my kindle version). He engages with the big thinkers, from Aristotle to Paine, as well as the arguments of other academics. Endnotes are organised by chapter, with references to ancient and modern sources, as well as an extensive bibliography; this is book for academia as well as an interested general reader. It is a thorough, significant work written with a clear and abiding love for the subject matter. In evaluating the differences between the concepts and actualities of democratic forms, Cartledge raises questions about real-world democracy. For this reason, the book has genuine relevance to both modern British society and the international community. We, who often celebrate the democratic nature of our political system, should perhaps look again at how people can be, or have been, represented more directly or more effectively, and how that representation has been stifled or modified to serve the interests of specific groups. There are valuable lessons from the past here.
Many thanks to Paul Cartledge, Oxford University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
In this book, all his considerable knowledge is brought to bear on the history and varied forms of Democracy, from its inception to modern day formats, and all the multifaceted adaptations in-between. Cartledge offers or refers to extant evidence throughout, from personal translations of ancient texts, to extensively detailed descriptions of artefacts and their history, and wonderfully clear images of coinage (in my kindle version). He engages with the big thinkers, from Aristotle to Paine, as well as the arguments of other academics. Endnotes are organised by chapter, with references to ancient and modern sources, as well as an extensive bibliography; this is book for academia as well as an interested general reader. It is a thorough, significant work written with a clear and abiding love for the subject matter. In evaluating the differences between the concepts and actualities of democratic forms, Cartledge raises questions about real-world democracy. For this reason, the book has genuine relevance to both modern British society and the international community. We, who often celebrate the democratic nature of our political system, should perhaps look again at how people can be, or have been, represented more directly or more effectively, and how that representation has been stifled or modified to serve the interests of specific groups. There are valuable lessons from the past here.
Many thanks to Paul Cartledge, Oxford University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
September 9, 2018
As one might expect from Cartledge (who is a Classicist) this book is primarily about the varied lives of democracy in ancient Greece--broadly conceived from about the 8th century BCE to the Roman period. He argues principally that the simplistic formulation 'Greek democracy,' or even 'Athenian democracy' hides a wide variety of experiences and types of government experienced in divergent contexts. For instance, Cartledge makes the case for four periods of 'democracy' in Athens alone from the late 6th century to the early 4th century BCE. And these four periods each had different institutions and degrees of popular vs. aristocratic control. He also argues that the democracy in Athens was one out of a multitude of city-states (though he prefers the term citizen-states, because not all Greek poleis were urban) that tried various forms of democracy. This book also shows how, in contrast to our contemporary Western notion that democracy is self-evidently the best form of government, in Greece the political system was deeply contested, with many democracies being relatively short lived.
The latter portion of the book does look beyond Greece to consider the Roman Republic, the medieval and Renaissance periods, the democratic/republican revolutions of the English Civil War and US and French Revolutions, the establishment of a functional representative government in Britain in the 19th century, and finally the contemporary period. One common thread he traces is that for most of these periods the model political thinkers looked to was the Roman res publica, rather than Athenian democracy. And even when, in the late 19th century, people began advocating for democracy as a positive thing, they rarely envisioned anything like the direct citizenship voting and appointment by lot that characterized Athenians institutions--instead they envisioned a liberal/representative system that was nominally democratic but in effect (and originally in intent) insulated political decision making from the input of the demos itself (i.e., the citizen body). In this sense, modern day 'democracies' in countries like the UK, US, Canada, Australia, France, etc. continue more in the mode of the res publica than of Athenian demokratia.
This book is collected from lecture notes, as Cartledge explains in the opening, and at times this is quite obvious. There are times when he finally defines a term that he had been using quite without definition throughout previous chapters. There are also times when he re-explains things that have already been discussed. However, for the most part this is not too distracting, and it doesn't interfere with comprehension.
The latter portion of the book does look beyond Greece to consider the Roman Republic, the medieval and Renaissance periods, the democratic/republican revolutions of the English Civil War and US and French Revolutions, the establishment of a functional representative government in Britain in the 19th century, and finally the contemporary period. One common thread he traces is that for most of these periods the model political thinkers looked to was the Roman res publica, rather than Athenian democracy. And even when, in the late 19th century, people began advocating for democracy as a positive thing, they rarely envisioned anything like the direct citizenship voting and appointment by lot that characterized Athenians institutions--instead they envisioned a liberal/representative system that was nominally democratic but in effect (and originally in intent) insulated political decision making from the input of the demos itself (i.e., the citizen body). In this sense, modern day 'democracies' in countries like the UK, US, Canada, Australia, France, etc. continue more in the mode of the res publica than of Athenian demokratia.
This book is collected from lecture notes, as Cartledge explains in the opening, and at times this is quite obvious. There are times when he finally defines a term that he had been using quite without definition throughout previous chapters. There are also times when he re-explains things that have already been discussed. However, for the most part this is not too distracting, and it doesn't interfere with comprehension.
June 22, 2016
Cartledge may not be one of the most elegant of writers but in this timely book he takes his cue from the way 'democracy' has been adopted as a kind of political (and military) battle-cry of the 21st century, and explores what it originally meant in (primarily) ancient Athens, how it developed, and its appropriations from the classical period through late antiquity and via the medieval and renaissance periods into the modern world. Those without a background in classics/ancient history may be surprised to find that many thinkers and commentators from classical Athens were against democracy (literally, demos kratia, the rule of the mob or crowd), and that, as Cartledge puts it, Athenian democracy was closer to Lenin's ideas of political rule by the proletariat than the kind of oligarchy (rule of the many by the few) that we tend to mean when we talk about democratic systems today, particularly in the UK and US.
The book is organised roughly chronologically and is based on an undergraduate course aimed at classicists and historians so it's not heavily theorised i.e. is not a book primarily on political thought. What Cartledge does very well is to problematise the concept of democracy, to pull it apart, alienate it from the glib ways in which it is often used today by demagogues, and put the idea back together through a close analysis of the sources.
This is dense and detailed but also has a presentist slant that makes it extremely pertinent to our own current debates about what democracy is and isn't.
The book is organised roughly chronologically and is based on an undergraduate course aimed at classicists and historians so it's not heavily theorised i.e. is not a book primarily on political thought. What Cartledge does very well is to problematise the concept of democracy, to pull it apart, alienate it from the glib ways in which it is often used today by demagogues, and put the idea back together through a close analysis of the sources.
This is dense and detailed but also has a presentist slant that makes it extremely pertinent to our own current debates about what democracy is and isn't.
January 23, 2018
While primarily focusing on ancient Athenian democracy (or democracies), Cartledge's study investigates the transformations of democracy throughout the ages and investigates how it affected and affects a polis. The first 13 or so chapters are about ancient Greece, which was what I was looking for. The remaining few chapters examine the Roman Republic and democracy in Europe and America during the enlightenment all the way through the modern age. There is a lot of historiographical study in this book but it helps the author craft his narrative. The different forms of democracy, and the various historical perspectives on them, are shape shifters. One of the overall points of crafting such a narrative is how the idea of direct, or shall we say pure democracy (i.e. Athens 450 B.C.E - 327 B.C.E) can vanish from the world's political menu. When it reappears it is watered down and entangled in pseudo-repbulics, eclipsed by empires, or undermined by counterintuitive agendas.
The last three chapters were surprisingly compelling, yet poignant, as the reader is reminded of how the premise of one person one vote is a shell of its former ancient entity. The future of an empowered demos, according to Cartledge, is like looking at slightly opened blinds. A dark view with splinters of optimism casting rays of light into one's philosophical expanse. Can the blinds be opened further? Perhaps but it will be tough. Looking back at the ancients creates a longing for an uncut democratic kratos despite its chaos and shortfalls. I saw the history, and it worked.
The last three chapters were surprisingly compelling, yet poignant, as the reader is reminded of how the premise of one person one vote is a shell of its former ancient entity. The future of an empowered demos, according to Cartledge, is like looking at slightly opened blinds. A dark view with splinters of optimism casting rays of light into one's philosophical expanse. Can the blinds be opened further? Perhaps but it will be tough. Looking back at the ancients creates a longing for an uncut democratic kratos despite its chaos and shortfalls. I saw the history, and it worked.
November 27, 2017
Going back to the early history of democracy brings real insights for today. Cartledge makes clear that at any given point what people meant by democracy may not be what we mean by it. Most important for me was distinguishing between the modern concept of civil liberties being at the core of democracy vs. the more original sense of democracy as direct self rule by all citizens (not just the rich). The point being that our concept of rights in relation to the state would have had no relevance or even much sense for ancient Athenians. For them it was about who got to participate in decision-making, serve on juries, and serve as officials. Also selection by lot vs. voting was a key component of Athenian democracy. Very different from our concepts.
April 16, 2018
I quite enjoyed this as an audiobook, but would have preferred to read it physically because honestly, it got quite dense. The book mostly gives us a grounding in Ancient Greek democracy, depicting the various versions of Athens and Thebes, the conflict with Sparta, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, and also many other lesser known Greek intellects. I also enjoyed the emphasis on Greek tragedy writers and their commentary on government. After this very firm historical grounding, the book quickly skips through the centuries of the fall from democracy, to the revolutions of a few hundred years ago, to what we call democracy now - making clear how far from the classical Greek version we are. Good grounding in democratic procedure, and gave me a list of other works and writers to read.
July 6, 2020
A dense scholarly commentary
This isn’t your Dad’s general commentary on democracy. Instead, this is an impressive scholarly examination of the theory of democracy and its application as a system of government, applied in a pure or mixed form. This is not a thesis for the advocacy of democracy. Richly referenced, with a very robust bibliography, Cartledge provides another meaningful volume in the genre.
This isn’t your Dad’s general commentary on democracy. Instead, this is an impressive scholarly examination of the theory of democracy and its application as a system of government, applied in a pure or mixed form. This is not a thesis for the advocacy of democracy. Richly referenced, with a very robust bibliography, Cartledge provides another meaningful volume in the genre.
January 11, 2025
Paul Cartledge writes a history of democracy in Athens, the Greek world, and its return in the modern world in a somewhat transmuted form. He argues that democracy had its origins in Athens, countering the claims of contemporary thinkers that democracy “was developing in the Middle East, India, and China before classical Athens (2)” and therefore was not a uniquely western invention. Another objective of the book is to show that there was not a single form of Greek democracy, but democracy in Ancient Greece came in various forms as elucidated by Aristotle’s sub-types in the Politics; Cartledge explores democratic examples from Argos, Corinth, Syracuse and even Thebes after the Peloponnesian War.
“It is probably safe to say that at least in the first half of the fourth century, there were several hundred Greek democracies or democratic poleis, but all we have by way of evidence to corroborate that crude approximation is the general statement of Aristotle that in his day most of the then-existent Greek poleis were some version of either democracies or oligarchies (146).”
Much of the early chapters are dedicated to elaborating terms and the Greek conception of ideas such as the polis and its relationship to citizens. Cartledge believes the translation of polis as city-state leads to a lot of misconceptions as not all polis had a central city and the political identity of a polis was defined by its people, not the cities or states themselves. He traces through epigraphy the first appearance of the polis and its identity in history as a radical change in orientation from the earlier chieftain societies of the Homeric world.
Cartledge spends a lot of time defining what the Greeks meant by democracy. The Greeks understood democracy as free male citizens holding political power and “collective decision-making by the majority voting of voters (3).” The Greeks thought of democracy as an ideology of the lower-classes and would have viewed most modern democracies as “disguised oligarchy (1).” The Athenian democracy, along with others, were direct democracies in which the citizens could vote directly on laws, participate on juries, and held political offices by lot, while modern democracies are representative in which we vote on people to represent us to make laws and hold political offices. Even the ancient conception of freedom differed; the ancient conception involved freedom to participate in the public sphere, while more modern conceptions tend to be focused on freedom in one’s private life.
Cartledge identifies the true founding of democracy, not with Solon’s reforms or Ephialtes reforms like some scholars, but with the reforms of Cleisthenes. These reforms divided the citizens into ten tribes based on region, further divided into local demes that enrolled citizens; founded the Council of 500, which oversaw legislative business and was made up of a portion of each tribe; and lastly created the institution of ostracism to prevent stasis by temporarily removing unpopular figures in society.
As part of his investigation into Athens, Cartledge explores the relationship between religion and democracy, theater and democracy, anti-democratic attitude of philosophers like Plato, the strong oligarchic opposition to democracy internally from disgruntled elite Athenians and externally in the form of the Spartans during the Peloponnesian war, and the paradoxical political role women played as citizenship required both one’s father and mother to be Athenian citizens after a citizenship law introduced by Pericles, yet at the same time essentially had no political voice in the assembly or other democratic institutions, with the ideal role (although only achievable by the rich) of being cloistered in the home and removed from the public sphere.
If the golden age of democracy in Athens and other Greek polis flourished not during the age of Pericles, but during the 4th century BCE, then the rise of Macedon as a political and military force complicated matters further. The Hellenistic period featured the paradoxical nature in which democracy was wide-spread at the local polis level, but was controlled regionally and nationally by kings through governors and military garrisons. Alexander established democracies in many of the Greek cities that he conquered from Persia in Ionia such as Miletus, Iasus, Calymna, and Cos.
“This does not mean, however, that Alexander, a hereditary Macedonian monarch and autocrat, was in any sense a convert to democracy on principle. It was simply that he had opportunistically found a simple way of diverting the Asiatic Greek cities from their Persian allegiance to allegiance to him, by overthrowing the oligarchs’ regimes and promoting the cause of their internal, anti-Persian democrat opponents (233).”
Cartledge warns, however, some of these were very restrictive democracies such as Miletus, which used elections rather than democratic lottery to appoint officials and none of the extant decrees show signs of amendments suggesting that the assembly that voted on them had little power to discuss and debate them. Although some debate exists whether we should talk of democracy continuing in Athens under Macedonian rule, Cartledge expresses skepticism, noting how Demetrius of Macedon and his father Antigonus had the authority to override Athenian courts and the Assembly, were worshiped as gods. Overall, the “democratic” polis of this period were really “various shades of oligarchy (244)” that used the idea of democracy as propagandist rallying cry against monarchy, tyranny, and independence from foreign rule. Cartledge argues the word itself degenerated from its original meaning during this period.
After the Hellenistic kingdoms, Rome became a force in Mediterranean politics by defeating the rival Empire of Carthage and its fights with Macedon, and on-again-off-again alliances and battles with the Achaean League. Cartledge challenges Polybius’s claim that Rome was a mixed constitution with democratic elements. He also rejects the scholar Fergus Millar’s claims that Rome should be seen as a democracy. Cartledge counters that the Roman political system had “built-in inequalities and unfairnesses (261)” such as many enrolled Roman citizens were in no position to travel to Rome and hear arguments for a proposal, Roman citizens voted in pooled groups called centuries and almost half of those grouped votes (88 of the 193 voting centuries) consisted exclusively of the highest class out of the five property-census groups meaning the richest citizens had a significantly higher proportion of the counted votes, and there was no decision-making government by mass meeting in Rome and any meetings to discuss laws and proposals could only be convened by a magistrate. It was really the handful of potentates and the aristocratic senator that set the agenda and the terms in which the rest of the Roman people could participate in governing Rome.
The shift to the Roman Empire didn’t help matters. Emperors like Augustus and other writers referred to protecting the rights of the people, but this was mostly propaganda to bolster and hide autocracy. In Byzantium, thinkers linked democracy to mob rule and mob violence in opposition to social order.
The Middle Ages witnessed some limited republics in Italy and thinkers who criticized absolute kingship, but they weren’t Republicans, let alone advocates for democracy. Although thinkers like Marsilius of Padua discussed popular consent could be viewed as a precursor to the revival of democratic thought. Meanwhile documents like Magna Carta that spelled out rights between the baronial class and the king (and contributed important ideas like habeas corpus) had debatable links to being called truly forerunners of democracy. Nevertheless Cartledge does see Magna Carta as offering something important to the history of democracy:
“The real legacy of the document as a whole is that it established the crucial principle that the law was a power in its own right to which the king, like his people, was subject and thus limited the king’s authority (277-278).”
In the Renaissance, the writer Machiavelli linked the idea of a republic with the idea of popular government. Further democratic revived during the English Revolutions of the 17th century featuring the ideological and actual warfare between Parliament and absolute monarchy. While the Glorious Revolution of 1688 paved the way for parliamentary democracy.
Cartledge ends by tackling briefly the revival of democracy as a viable political form during the French Revolution and American Revolution with its representative democracies, identifying one of the key proponents of this democratic revival as Thomas Paine, before finishing his book with recommendations of three Greek scholars and their views of how Ancient Greek democracy can inform and improve upon modern democracy.
This book was extremely informative and would be worthwhile for anyone interested in the Athenian democracy and its relationship to modern democracy. Nevertheless its strength rests on its discussion of the Athenian democracy and Greek democracy more generally rather than the larger discussion of Greek democracy’s relationship with modern democracy. In Part five of the book where Cartledge finally starts talking about democratic ideas after the ancient world, the history and analysis, and engagement with the extant scholarship grows much thinner. This is obvious in the page distribution: 228 pages are dedicated to discussion of various aspects of Athens and Greek democracy, while 84 pages are spent discussing democracy in the Hellenistic period, Rome, the Middle Ages, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, French Revolution, and 19th century Britain. 84 pages on democratic thought in the American Revolution or the French Revolution would be considered brief and introductory at best, but this coverage is spread out over all of these other topics and periods. For this reason the book feels like it lacks balance and its coverage of democracy after Athens and Greece feels like an afterthought. It also would have been better in my view if the epilogue had summarized how each chapter fit into his larger arguments.
“It is probably safe to say that at least in the first half of the fourth century, there were several hundred Greek democracies or democratic poleis, but all we have by way of evidence to corroborate that crude approximation is the general statement of Aristotle that in his day most of the then-existent Greek poleis were some version of either democracies or oligarchies (146).”
Much of the early chapters are dedicated to elaborating terms and the Greek conception of ideas such as the polis and its relationship to citizens. Cartledge believes the translation of polis as city-state leads to a lot of misconceptions as not all polis had a central city and the political identity of a polis was defined by its people, not the cities or states themselves. He traces through epigraphy the first appearance of the polis and its identity in history as a radical change in orientation from the earlier chieftain societies of the Homeric world.
Cartledge spends a lot of time defining what the Greeks meant by democracy. The Greeks understood democracy as free male citizens holding political power and “collective decision-making by the majority voting of voters (3).” The Greeks thought of democracy as an ideology of the lower-classes and would have viewed most modern democracies as “disguised oligarchy (1).” The Athenian democracy, along with others, were direct democracies in which the citizens could vote directly on laws, participate on juries, and held political offices by lot, while modern democracies are representative in which we vote on people to represent us to make laws and hold political offices. Even the ancient conception of freedom differed; the ancient conception involved freedom to participate in the public sphere, while more modern conceptions tend to be focused on freedom in one’s private life.
Cartledge identifies the true founding of democracy, not with Solon’s reforms or Ephialtes reforms like some scholars, but with the reforms of Cleisthenes. These reforms divided the citizens into ten tribes based on region, further divided into local demes that enrolled citizens; founded the Council of 500, which oversaw legislative business and was made up of a portion of each tribe; and lastly created the institution of ostracism to prevent stasis by temporarily removing unpopular figures in society.
As part of his investigation into Athens, Cartledge explores the relationship between religion and democracy, theater and democracy, anti-democratic attitude of philosophers like Plato, the strong oligarchic opposition to democracy internally from disgruntled elite Athenians and externally in the form of the Spartans during the Peloponnesian war, and the paradoxical political role women played as citizenship required both one’s father and mother to be Athenian citizens after a citizenship law introduced by Pericles, yet at the same time essentially had no political voice in the assembly or other democratic institutions, with the ideal role (although only achievable by the rich) of being cloistered in the home and removed from the public sphere.
If the golden age of democracy in Athens and other Greek polis flourished not during the age of Pericles, but during the 4th century BCE, then the rise of Macedon as a political and military force complicated matters further. The Hellenistic period featured the paradoxical nature in which democracy was wide-spread at the local polis level, but was controlled regionally and nationally by kings through governors and military garrisons. Alexander established democracies in many of the Greek cities that he conquered from Persia in Ionia such as Miletus, Iasus, Calymna, and Cos.
“This does not mean, however, that Alexander, a hereditary Macedonian monarch and autocrat, was in any sense a convert to democracy on principle. It was simply that he had opportunistically found a simple way of diverting the Asiatic Greek cities from their Persian allegiance to allegiance to him, by overthrowing the oligarchs’ regimes and promoting the cause of their internal, anti-Persian democrat opponents (233).”
Cartledge warns, however, some of these were very restrictive democracies such as Miletus, which used elections rather than democratic lottery to appoint officials and none of the extant decrees show signs of amendments suggesting that the assembly that voted on them had little power to discuss and debate them. Although some debate exists whether we should talk of democracy continuing in Athens under Macedonian rule, Cartledge expresses skepticism, noting how Demetrius of Macedon and his father Antigonus had the authority to override Athenian courts and the Assembly, were worshiped as gods. Overall, the “democratic” polis of this period were really “various shades of oligarchy (244)” that used the idea of democracy as propagandist rallying cry against monarchy, tyranny, and independence from foreign rule. Cartledge argues the word itself degenerated from its original meaning during this period.
After the Hellenistic kingdoms, Rome became a force in Mediterranean politics by defeating the rival Empire of Carthage and its fights with Macedon, and on-again-off-again alliances and battles with the Achaean League. Cartledge challenges Polybius’s claim that Rome was a mixed constitution with democratic elements. He also rejects the scholar Fergus Millar’s claims that Rome should be seen as a democracy. Cartledge counters that the Roman political system had “built-in inequalities and unfairnesses (261)” such as many enrolled Roman citizens were in no position to travel to Rome and hear arguments for a proposal, Roman citizens voted in pooled groups called centuries and almost half of those grouped votes (88 of the 193 voting centuries) consisted exclusively of the highest class out of the five property-census groups meaning the richest citizens had a significantly higher proportion of the counted votes, and there was no decision-making government by mass meeting in Rome and any meetings to discuss laws and proposals could only be convened by a magistrate. It was really the handful of potentates and the aristocratic senator that set the agenda and the terms in which the rest of the Roman people could participate in governing Rome.
The shift to the Roman Empire didn’t help matters. Emperors like Augustus and other writers referred to protecting the rights of the people, but this was mostly propaganda to bolster and hide autocracy. In Byzantium, thinkers linked democracy to mob rule and mob violence in opposition to social order.
The Middle Ages witnessed some limited republics in Italy and thinkers who criticized absolute kingship, but they weren’t Republicans, let alone advocates for democracy. Although thinkers like Marsilius of Padua discussed popular consent could be viewed as a precursor to the revival of democratic thought. Meanwhile documents like Magna Carta that spelled out rights between the baronial class and the king (and contributed important ideas like habeas corpus) had debatable links to being called truly forerunners of democracy. Nevertheless Cartledge does see Magna Carta as offering something important to the history of democracy:
“The real legacy of the document as a whole is that it established the crucial principle that the law was a power in its own right to which the king, like his people, was subject and thus limited the king’s authority (277-278).”
In the Renaissance, the writer Machiavelli linked the idea of a republic with the idea of popular government. Further democratic revived during the English Revolutions of the 17th century featuring the ideological and actual warfare between Parliament and absolute monarchy. While the Glorious Revolution of 1688 paved the way for parliamentary democracy.
Cartledge ends by tackling briefly the revival of democracy as a viable political form during the French Revolution and American Revolution with its representative democracies, identifying one of the key proponents of this democratic revival as Thomas Paine, before finishing his book with recommendations of three Greek scholars and their views of how Ancient Greek democracy can inform and improve upon modern democracy.
This book was extremely informative and would be worthwhile for anyone interested in the Athenian democracy and its relationship to modern democracy. Nevertheless its strength rests on its discussion of the Athenian democracy and Greek democracy more generally rather than the larger discussion of Greek democracy’s relationship with modern democracy. In Part five of the book where Cartledge finally starts talking about democratic ideas after the ancient world, the history and analysis, and engagement with the extant scholarship grows much thinner. This is obvious in the page distribution: 228 pages are dedicated to discussion of various aspects of Athens and Greek democracy, while 84 pages are spent discussing democracy in the Hellenistic period, Rome, the Middle Ages, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, French Revolution, and 19th century Britain. 84 pages on democratic thought in the American Revolution or the French Revolution would be considered brief and introductory at best, but this coverage is spread out over all of these other topics and periods. For this reason the book feels like it lacks balance and its coverage of democracy after Athens and Greece feels like an afterthought. It also would have been better in my view if the epilogue had summarized how each chapter fit into his larger arguments.
July 10, 2017
Interesting, but I often felt like it was both too detailed and not detailed enough. You can clearly see its genesis in lecture notes, but something felt missing to me in the final product here.
October 9, 2017
Very good review of democracies in ancient Greece. The author makes a point to emphasize the plural "democracies" rather than "democracy" or "Athenian democracy" as he points out that there were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Greek city-states that had some form of democratic governance in their constitutions. Athens was the most democratic, however. In Cartledge's view, the two basic forms of government in ancient Greece were oligarchy and democracy. As a practical matter oligarchy meant rule by the rich and democracy meant rule by the poor. But for us moderns democracy/ rule by the poor is complicated by the reality of the institution of slavery which existed everywhere even in the most democratic of the poleis. Slaves were of course not part of the democratic governance.
Direct democracy died out early-on in the Hellenistic period and arguably has never really come back in its Athenian form. The closest thing we may have to it today might be our jury system where citizens are selected by lot to render verdicts in law courts. Otherwise it's more a case of representative republican-form of government. Democracy didn't have a very good reputation for a couple of millennia - being viewed as "mobocracy." Even the US founding fathers looked more to the Roman Republic and Principate for inspiration than Athenian democracy. That's why we have a Senate and a Capitol, not a Boule and an Agora. (And Cartledge argues that at no time was the Roman Republic a democracy.)
As a side note, through much of my life I have tended to view Plato and Aristotle as more or less twin pillars of ancient philosophy; co-equals in wisdom and importance. Although he does not say so directly, from Cartledge's book I get the impression that he views Aristotle as the towering genius and commanding presence of the ancient age.
As other reviewers have pointed out, the book falls down in its desire to bring the "story of democracy" up through to the present day. It is simply too tall an order for the author in a book of this kind. Better to have just reviewed democracy in ancient Greece. For one thing, in his discussion of more modern forms of government I don't believe he once makes mention of the instrument of the public referendum which is certainly a close relative of direct democracy and has arguably caused some mischief in recent years.
Direct democracy died out early-on in the Hellenistic period and arguably has never really come back in its Athenian form. The closest thing we may have to it today might be our jury system where citizens are selected by lot to render verdicts in law courts. Otherwise it's more a case of representative republican-form of government. Democracy didn't have a very good reputation for a couple of millennia - being viewed as "mobocracy." Even the US founding fathers looked more to the Roman Republic and Principate for inspiration than Athenian democracy. That's why we have a Senate and a Capitol, not a Boule and an Agora. (And Cartledge argues that at no time was the Roman Republic a democracy.)
As a side note, through much of my life I have tended to view Plato and Aristotle as more or less twin pillars of ancient philosophy; co-equals in wisdom and importance. Although he does not say so directly, from Cartledge's book I get the impression that he views Aristotle as the towering genius and commanding presence of the ancient age.
As other reviewers have pointed out, the book falls down in its desire to bring the "story of democracy" up through to the present day. It is simply too tall an order for the author in a book of this kind. Better to have just reviewed democracy in ancient Greece. For one thing, in his discussion of more modern forms of government I don't believe he once makes mention of the instrument of the public referendum which is certainly a close relative of direct democracy and has arguably caused some mischief in recent years.
August 27, 2023
The book takes a long and deep look at ancient Greek democracy - it first examines the emergence of democracy chronologically, looks at the theory behind ancient Greek democracy, what it looked like in practice, examines it through the lens of culture and looks at some of of the crises the democracy went through and how it it changed in different periods. The skipping back and forth between themes and chronology can be difficult to keep track of if you don't have a thorough picture of the chronology in your head. The book ends with an examination of democracy since ancient Greece and some of the lessons we might learn from the Greeks to enhance what we call democracy now.
The book is thorough to a fault, but this can be distracting for the average reader. Quite often Cartledge descends into a thick forest of details that on occasion are only tangentially related to the argument he seems to be trying to make at any given point. One senses his excitement for the subject matter and acknowledges his impressive depth of knowledge, but a more selective approach to evidence and its use to support argument would certainly make for an easier read.
Personally, I far preferred Thomas Mitchell's "Athens: A History of the World's First Democracy" as a far more readable account.
The book is thorough to a fault, but this can be distracting for the average reader. Quite often Cartledge descends into a thick forest of details that on occasion are only tangentially related to the argument he seems to be trying to make at any given point. One senses his excitement for the subject matter and acknowledges his impressive depth of knowledge, but a more selective approach to evidence and its use to support argument would certainly make for an easier read.
Personally, I far preferred Thomas Mitchell's "Athens: A History of the World's First Democracy" as a far more readable account.
August 27, 2022
I am very ambiguous about this book. While the topic is very interesting and Cartledge is a font of detailed knowledege, I still did not enjoy the book very much. I think this is due to the audibook format. It is a dense book and demands a level of concentration that audiobooks cannot give.
The book explores the ancient Greek democracies (the plural is important, because even though Athen is the one we know best, many polises of ancient Greece can be labelled as democracies). He traces the development and demise of these democracies and how they functioned. He also traces the percetion of this democracy through time, nothing how much of the ancient texts that survived through time such as the writings of Plato and THucydides were anti-democratic, thus propagting a negative picture of democracy that survived until the 19th century. Here democracy was seen as mob-rule and the tyranny of the masses.
All in all, this is a good, but dense book and one I recommend that people read, not listen to.
The book explores the ancient Greek democracies (the plural is important, because even though Athen is the one we know best, many polises of ancient Greece can be labelled as democracies). He traces the development and demise of these democracies and how they functioned. He also traces the percetion of this democracy through time, nothing how much of the ancient texts that survived through time such as the writings of Plato and THucydides were anti-democratic, thus propagting a negative picture of democracy that survived until the 19th century. Here democracy was seen as mob-rule and the tyranny of the masses.
All in all, this is a good, but dense book and one I recommend that people read, not listen to.
February 27, 2023
Different from what I expected. I assumed it was just going to be standard history of Athens in its democratic era (which it sort of is) rather than an analysis of the concept of democracy itself & how the idea of Athenian democracy persisted (or didn’t) throughout the intervening years down to the modern day. The style of writing isn’t the most accessible, there’s a lot of exploration of the minutiae of government which I found off putting at first but eventually got the hang of. The book does actually explore the general history of the democratic period through the lense of Athens (& other Greek city states of the era’s) development of democracy & its eventual fall. The legacy stuff is interesting in its own right (though it is very pessimistic about how true modern democracy is to the original Athenian ideal). If you’re looking for a narrative about hoplites & trirenes, this might be one to skip, but I think it executes it’s stated thesis very well & would probably be well worth a read for anyone interested in political theory/history.
July 26, 2020
Cartledge has wrote an interesting book on an interesting subject, his insight amd understanding of ancient greek democracy might be second to none. It made me much better understand democracy as a concept, our democracy now and its relation to the founders and cited some great books I have gone on to read
BUT before you buy this book, Cartledge is an Oxford classics professor, and he bloody writes like one bunkered in an ivory tower. It is not particularly accessible and I read numerous paragraphs over to make sure I understand it. I like to think I am fairly smart - but he ran circles around me in this book, partly because hr has a good eye for nuance but also because he likes to play his own devils advocate in a dizzying literature display of mental gymnastics.
If you are interested in understanding that somewhat illusive word of "Democracy" however, I would find it hard to recommend a better book.
BUT before you buy this book, Cartledge is an Oxford classics professor, and he bloody writes like one bunkered in an ivory tower. It is not particularly accessible and I read numerous paragraphs over to make sure I understand it. I like to think I am fairly smart - but he ran circles around me in this book, partly because hr has a good eye for nuance but also because he likes to play his own devils advocate in a dizzying literature display of mental gymnastics.
If you are interested in understanding that somewhat illusive word of "Democracy" however, I would find it hard to recommend a better book.
July 10, 2023
So seldom to I just give up on a book that now I'm at a loss for what to say. I had to set it down. I couldn't go on.
I've seen Democracy described as "erudite" and "highly technical." From my perspective the erudite is lost in the morass of highly technical. Also lost was clearly communicating how the early stages of Greek democracy differed from one another and why those differences were important.
I say this with all due respect for Cartledge's expertise. I enjoyed his book on Thebes very much and what I admired in that book is what I found lacking in the first 120 pages of this one.
I've seen Democracy described as "erudite" and "highly technical." From my perspective the erudite is lost in the morass of highly technical. Also lost was clearly communicating how the early stages of Greek democracy differed from one another and why those differences were important.
I say this with all due respect for Cartledge's expertise. I enjoyed his book on Thebes very much and what I admired in that book is what I found lacking in the first 120 pages of this one.
April 6, 2021
Turns out that modern western democracy isn't nearly as democratic as the original Greek version where citizen involvement went so far as having the chance to sit in the seat of power rather than just vote for a representative. That said, I could have done with a little less on the Greek history (over half the book) and more on the later centuries and other countries' practice. The final chapter does a good summing up though of the current state of democracy and the threats thereto.
October 7, 2021
This is SUCH a dry novel and not an easy read. BUT, Cartledge does an incredible amount of research and put together an impressively knowledgeable book. I would not read it again, or necessarily suggest it to someone, however, I learned a lot from it.
(Read this in the University of Chicago’s Democracy Social Science Core Course)
(Read this in the University of Chicago’s Democracy Social Science Core Course)
February 12, 2021
As Cartledge states, he is somewhat pessimistic in his view of Democracy. As an academic study, this is a rigorous book. As a social commentary, of past and present, you might come away feeling jaded.
February 2, 2023
An interesting look into the rise and fall of the Greek conception of democracy. But less a story of the "life" of democracy than its birth.
May 1, 2024
A fascinating survey of the development of democracy in Ancient Greece.
August 18, 2024
Cartledge weaves a compelling narrative but spends a bit too much time talking about coins and going on tangents for my taste.
December 25, 2025
Una historia de la democracia, ese bien que podemos perder
April 12, 2022
An indispensable introduction to politics and the implementation of direct democracy in ancient Greece in which the author presents several delineations of democracy which arose in ancient Greece. A critical analysis is also given to the often idealized notion of what was actually implemented. The chapter of democracy on the roman republic could have been longer as well as the chapters involving democracy in the modern age. Otherwise I don't have any substantial complaints.
(Note I don't like the star rating and as such I only rate books based upon one star or five stars corresponding to the in my opinion preferable rating of thumbs up/down. This later rating system encourages in my opinion the degree to which the reader is likely to read a review instead of merely glancing at the number of stars)
(Note I don't like the star rating and as such I only rate books based upon one star or five stars corresponding to the in my opinion preferable rating of thumbs up/down. This later rating system encourages in my opinion the degree to which the reader is likely to read a review instead of merely glancing at the number of stars)
goodreads-win
March 29, 2016Goodreads win
June 12, 2016
The material on Greece is extremely good, but the later sections on democracy's afterlife take brevity too far.
April 14, 2025
Moi boa revisión da democracia na Grecia antiga e a súa comparación coa república romana e a democracia representativa liberal actual e a inicial en Francia, Inglaterra e USA.
Moi recomendable.
Moi recomendable.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews