Los orígenes de la democracia griega : la teoría política griega entre el 800 y el 400 a.C.

by W.G. Forrest

En el siglo VIII antes de Cristo el hombre medio griego dependía por entero del dominio aristocrático. Pero ya en el V, en Atenas en primer lugar, aquel hombre había llegado a comprender que era un ser humano dotado de autonomía y voluntad, y que otros como él tenían igual voz para regir y organizar su sociedad. En el prese

Genres: History, Classics, Politics, Nonfiction

Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

About the author

William George Grieve Forrest, known as George Forrest, was a British classicist and academic. From 1977 to 1992, he was Wykeham Professor of Ancient History at the University of Oxford.

Reviews

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees · Rating 5 out of 5]

This obscure, doubtlessly forgotten, short book on the origins of Greek democracy was ridiculously better than what my expectations for it were. I expected something dry, something superficial--perhaps both. Dry is going to be in the eye of the beholder, and its relative depth is going to depend on previous knowledge, but what I found was an engaging, enlightening look at the causes that led to Greek democracy, one that is written for the layman, but probably one at an intermediate level rather than a beginner.

Forrest's style verges on the droll at times--here is a paragraph describing the makeup of the population c. 800 B.C.E:

"Thus in every locality there would be a small group of large landowners...smaller farmers...landless laborers and a few artisans [that] made up the free 'citizen' population; some slaves...[and] between freeman and slave...a substantial number of agricultural workers whom we might be tempted to call serfs, whose status would vary greatly from place to place and, even without variations, would be difficult to define. Indeed it is thoroughly misleading to use the word 'serf' which belongs to a world of very different relationships and it is simply cowardly to say 'what we might be tempted to call a serf', when we are dealing with a society in which it would not even be easy for us to define the difference between 'free' and 'unfree'."

So...the wording here still makes me chuckle. But it does illustrate what I liked about the book so much--Forrest continually ferrets out these instances where gaps exist in how we even talk about this period, and suggests that in many instances, assumptions based on current understandings of terms (which can only ever approximate the situation in this earlier period) can lead us to the wrong conclusions.

Much of the period that Forrest covers has little documentation to draw from, and what is there is fragmentary and unreliable. So for each stage in the ongoing push toward democracy, he is forced to rely on conjecture. So, for instance, wondering why a leader like Solon was able to push through his reforms, or why only a few years later a man like Piesistratos was able to become tyrant of Athens, Forrest works backwards from the action to make an educated guess as to what the general mood of the people were at the time. Even when democracy stumbled, Forrest teases out a logical thread that, if not exact, is reasonable.

What is especially valuable to me is that this is the kind of book that looks behind the historical narrative and addresses what stresses and conditions funneled the actors into the positions they held, which then provides a context for understanding why the people did what they did. It's a book that does what a book like, for example, Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy & the Birth of Democracy promises to do. (Lords of the Sea is a good book, but it concentrates on the narrative approach, and misses the underlying factors that motivated people.) This is a book I'd put in the same category as two other relatively obscure and fairly dry examinations of two completely different periods, Restoration, Revolution, Reaction: Economics and Politics in Germany 1815-1871 by Theodore S. Hamerow and Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy by Oscar Jászi.

There are countless examinations of 'what' happened in ancient Greece. If one's interest veers in the direction of 'why' it happened, then The Emergence of Greek Democracy is one source to broaden your understanding. At a recent library sale, I saw a couple other editions of the series put out by McGraw-Hill, World University Library. I passed on them because I'd assumed that this example was not going to be very interesting. I don't know that the others will rise to the same level as this one, but I'll be looking out for them from now on.

[Gary Bruff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is as relevant today as when it was published in 1966. Our modern democracy has been facing the same structural issue for generations: populist direct mob rule vs technocratic delegation to an often wealthy and powerful elite. And it would appear things were not very different in the Greece of twenty-five centuries ago. However, while we rely on a media to mediate between the people and some form of sovereignty, Greek politics was characterized by a far more face to face experience. On account of this deeply personal and in-person aspect of politics within the polis, our political ancestors were in a sense more democratic then we. But in our civilization, where communication is mediated and power is delegated to near total strangers, we can nevertheless boast of granting equal rights to women while not tolerating slavery. So in another sense, the world has never been more democratic than it is today.

We can still learn much from the Greek city-states discussed by Forrest: Corinth, Sparta, and of course Athens. All three staged one or more revolutions either to end tyranny or else to extend the deliberative franchise beyond a narrow oligarchy or aristocracy. Sparta was not really democratic, since it's citizens lived on the backs of a slave caste, the helots, and were ruled by a (dual) monarchy. But even in Sparta there was a check on absolute power: two kings coming from two distinct houses shared power, sometimes antagonistically, sometimes with a cooperative spirit. But either way, compromise and deliberation become necessary for political action.

In Athens, meanwhile, power was far more diffuse and dependent on the consent of those governed. Laws came from the people, and the people began to see the law as more binding than tradition, more consistent than charisma. Law also became depersonalized. Suddenly, it became much easier to colonize towns and outposts around the Mediterranean and Black Sea, especially since 'the people' itself became the most enthusiastic patron of these adventures. The ensuing increase in trade benefited a new merchant and industrial class that in time financially outpaced and politically displaced a static aristocracy. According to Forrest, Athenian colonialism augmented self-awareness and individualism among its citizenry, with economic change engendering political reform. The Athenian citizens as a body even had the right (once per year) to ostracize an undesirable citizen from Athens for ten years. This obviously provided a check on arbitrary power and led to the ruling class living somewhat in fear of the people they were ruling. For this reason, writers of Athens, from Plato to Aristophanes, showed palpable concern over the potentially disastrous powers of a fickle mob.

And then there's war. The Athenian polity suffered a serious setback when a colonial expedition to Sicily ended in disaster, with much loss of life and loss of taxpayer investment. Since the mob of voters were enthused by colonialism and wholeheartedly supported the mission to Sicily, they had nobody to blame but themselves. While it is true also that democracy came to be suspended during wars or other crises, people-power managed to come roaring back when the crises were overcome, often resulting in political reform and an expanded franchise for the people. And evidently many would-be conquerors--the Spartans, the Macedonians, eventually even Rome--were somewhat smitten by the material and cultural well-being of the Athenian demes, occasionally seeking to emulate their popular forms of government.

So setting aside slaves and women, the Athenians were favored by the gods, in time coming to take for granted the rights and duties of a citizen of the polis. But we must not forget that there were certainly tribal democracies long before the Greeks, generally taking the form either of groups of elders who were heads of lineages, or else assemblies of warriors, or the court of a chief. Such councils were common in primitive conditions, as in the Iliad, when King Agamemnon is challenged by his people in assembly.

Finally, I take the lesson of Forrest’s Emergence of Greek Democracy (800BC to 400BC) to be that democracy is neither old nor new, neither perfect nor pernicious. And the spirit of democracy is worth keeping, even if we don’t like the outcome of the latest election. For as long as all voices are heard that wish to be heard, and as long as compromise is permitted to emerge from a seemingly hopeless political stalemate, then we are in a place where 'power to the people' will have a happy outcome. Such is my hope.

[Tina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a review, but some thoughts.

I find I'm very uncomfortable when I read things without knowing the proper historical background. If I myself cannot explain a concept to you in plain words in 2-3 sentences, I don't know it & I do not have the right to comment on it.
So,
1) I know close to nothing about Greek history.
2) I know close to nothing about political theory.
And this book go into a heavy discourse with the implicit view that the reader would be well-versed on both subjects. Which is to say, I had absolutely no bloody idea what I was reading.

Nevertheless, it did provide me with a basis of which I can work to build up my classical history -- names I can become familiar with, general timeline I can pinpoint. It is always good (particularly for my way of learning) to start somewhere in a specific era. Let's say I picked up Thucydides before this, my point of reference would then be the Peloponnesian Wars and Athenian-Spartan conflict; or if I went with Hesiod -- Archaic Greece with a focus on religion.

Starting with political theory is interesting.

I suck at political science. I cannot tell you the difference between oligarchy and aristocracy. I don't know how to define "politics" properly. As Perikles said: "the man who stands aloof from politics not just unambitious but useless"

And another line from the book: “The generation which was entering politics in the 420s did not remember the crisis of 462; for them full democracy was something to be taken for granted, something that they could no longer get excited about, for or against.”

oh....
Perhaps the worst fear is to become indifferent, apathetic, ignorant.
How can I justify to be "well-read" if I continue to read history without critical thoughts to politics and economy?

[James Empson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazed to find this book in a used bookstore in Ely MN. I had read it back in the mid 70’s as a lowly undergrad looking for brownie points. Full disclosure: the author “George” was my Greek history tutor 1974-8.
Memory tells me that I had grasped a few simple concepts, but in rereading the book, I clearly missed much of the nuance and of the manner in which the author favors the rationale of logical assumption - tempered with a lack of certitude - versus a didactic set of conventional answers or a rewrite of history solely on economic theory that was in vogue at the time.
Now I’m left wondering what current thinking might be on early Greek constitutional development, particularly given the issues relating to democracy, oligarchy and demagoguery in contemporary (2021) society

[Silvia Cancio · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be able to engage with the read you have to well know what Forrest is talking about and if you are, then Forrest does not add up much.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

The most distinctive thesis of this book is that the Spartan assembly of Equals was the prototype of Greek democracy. However, while the notion of popular sovereignty developed beyond the mere assent/dissent of citizen assemblies, most particularly in Athens, the Spartan model remained primitive.