Pericles and The Athenian Democracy by Anthony Peter Iannini | last edited: 06.11.2011 | originally written: 1999

to other essays

Essay Overview:
______________________________________

This is an essay that examines the Athenian Democracy in Greece under the ruler Pericles with emphasis on the pros and cons of his rule as well as the democratic system established by the Athenians. For emphasis and clarity, quotations attributed to Pericles have been colored light green and quotations by others have been colored in light blue.

---

Pericles (495-429 BC) has long been associated with the birth of Athenian democracy (R1). As the successor of Ephialtes in 462/1 BC, Pericles continued the policies of the radical democrats. His remarkable role as a leader and as an Athenian patriot gave him the power to implement reforms during the 450?s BC that brought Athens to the height of democracy. But the leadership of Pericles did not go unopposed.

He was openly criticized for his arrogant manner, commanding tone, and resemblance to the tyrant Peisistratus. Pericles was also challenged for his use of public funds, which came from the treasury of the Delian League. In spite of his opposition, Pericles was able to consistently maintain his position as leader of Athens until his death in 429 BC, three years after the beginning of the Peloponnesian War.

More than fifty years before Pericles attained the rank of first man in Athens, democratic reforms had already begun. After the expulsion of the last tyrant Hippias, in 510 BC, the Athenian democracy began to take shape under the leadership of Clisthenes. The early reforms of Clisthenes in 508/7 BC, such as ostracism, brought the Athenians into the early stages of a form of government that was new to the Greek world (R2).

Themistocles, in 483/2 BC was able to use ostracism to remove opposition and ensure the sovereignty of the assembly (R3). Also, the Athenians began building their massive fleet. This new naval power required a large number of sailors who would become integral to the formation of Athenian government participation (R4).

The camaraderie shared between the men who were from different parts of the Athenian city-state served to unify the ideas and views of the people and remove the regional conflicts that had previously been sources of division. From 478 to 462/1 BC, Athens experienced a conservative period under the leadership of Cimon during which radical democrats were suppressed.

In 463 BC, Pericles made his first political appearance in the shadow of Ephialtes, who was the leader of the radical democrats and the foremost critic of the conservative policies of Cimon.

Themistocles and Aristides had been removed from power and Cimon, who was the dominant political figure of the time, was away on military campaign (R5). Because of his lineage, from the aristocratic and powerful Alcmaeonid family, and his formidable capacity for speaking, Pericles was at first a candidate for tyranny and, in turn, ostracism.

Many historians have speculated that Pericles waited until the time was right for a him to rise up in Athenian politics. This is a plausible theory because Pericles waited until he was thirty-one years old to enter the political scene.

At the time, this was a late age to began a public career. However, this does not prove his motives but only his methods of gaining power to carry out his motives; whether they be just or not. Obviously, Pericles was a careful, calculating politician from the beginning. But, it was not until the death of Ephialtes, the leader of Pericles’ political faction, that circumstances allowed Pericles to rise up in Athenian politics.

As a general during the siege of Thasos, Pericles first gained the position of power that would lead him into public prominence. Shortly after the siege had been won, Cimon returned to charges of bribery. The bribe allegedly came from the Macedonian King to hold back when the Athenians were in good position to conquer them.

The case against Cimon involved the whole Athenian community and anyone could speak in prosecution of the charged. The prosecution was headed by Pericles, who was among the political opposition to Cimon under Ephialtes in 461/2 BC (R6). Pericles was, according to Plutarch, "very gentle" with Cimon, acting as if the prosecution was merely his public duty, rather than an attack (R7).

The restraint shown by Pericles was politically important, because many of Cimon’s policies were still popular. In The Constitution of Athens, Aristotle states, "After this, Pericles became one of the leaders of the people, first becoming famous when he was a young man and prosecuted Cimon at his euthuna as strategos." (R8).

Eventually, Cimon’s policy towards Sparta would make him a target for Athenian opposition. During allied military aid to Sparta, the Athenians were singled out and asked to leave. The Spartans declared that their aid was not required, but as Thucydides states, "...the Spartans were afraid of the boldness and the revolutionary spirit of the Athenians, thinking that... if they remained they might be persuaded by the men on Ithome to change sides." (R9).

Pericles must have learned the political importance of remaining in Athens during this time, because he often stayed in the city as an orator rather than campaigning for the rest of his career. With the absence of Cimon and much of the hoplite class, radical democrats, led by Ephialtes, were able to implement their policies and hold influence over the assembly.

The largely dissatisfied lower class thetes, who held most of the power during the absence of the middle-class hoplites, supported the policies of the radical democrats. Because the Areopagus severely limited the sovereignty of the Athenians, legislation was passed that transferred most of the power of the Areopagus to the council of 500 and to the 6000 jurors of the popular law courts or dikasteria. Consequently, the Areopagus was left with its old jurisdiction over cases concerning homicide but little else (R10). This transfer of power began the shift in Athens from limited to full democracy.

When Cimon returned to Athens, the insults of the Spartans had all but destroyed Cimon’s influence. In 461 BC, Ephialtes and the other radical democrats were successful in ostracizing Cimon. Pericles, however, was still not to rise to power until the leader of the faction, Ephialtes, was murdered by Aristodikos of Tanagra in 462/1 BC (R11).

Hatred for Ephialtes among the supporters of Cimon was high and this seems to be the most logical cause of his untimely murder. Pericles, after this time, was able to secure the leadership of the faction and rise into public prominence. While Pericles did gain from the death of Ephialtes, Plutarch dismisses the unlikely possibility that he had anything to do with the plot.

The ostracism of Cimon and the violent death of Ephialtes left Pericles at the center of the Athenian state. Pericles was elected strategos year after year following the ostracism of Thucydides, son of Melesias, which gave him the official seat of power as one of the ten generals. Plutarch writes, "...and after the fall of Thucydides and his ostracism, he [Pericles] exercised for no less than fifteen years a continuous, unbroken authority through his annual tenure of the office of general." (R12).

The esteemed military and political position of stratgoi was one of the few that was guaranteed during the course of a year and allowed the holder to use the influence of his office in order to present policies. This emphasizes the fact that during the fifth century BC in Athens, military and political power were closely related. Pericles’ position as general was highly important, but it was not the main source of his influence over the assembly. The actual basis of his power was his personal authority among the Athenians, in which he surpassed the other generals (R13).

Various accounts vividly describe Pericles’ influence and prowess as an orator. The nature of his position has been described by Thucydides, "... the Athenian constitution is a democracy in name only, in reality it is the rule of the foremost man." (R14). Pericles governed with his oratory, his ability to speak to the Athenian citizens and persuade them to his own opinion. The words of Thucydides seem to suggest that Pericles was more in control than was commonly believed.

A problem with this idea was that the people, at all times, ultimately maintained the control of power. The Athenian assembly, or ekklesia, always retained the power of ostracism in the event that one figure ever gained so much power that he was seen as a tyrant. Only as long as Pericles was able to use his reason and eloquence to sway public opinion was he guaranteed position as the leading statesman in Athens. Thucydides also states, "...Pericles, because of his position, his intelligence, and his known integrity, could respect the liberty of the people and at the same time hold them in check." (R15).

Pericles was a master of words in both oratory and in other spheres of discussion and persuasion. He has been attributed with the skills of quick thought and aggressive resourcefulness in both his logic and knowledge. Pericles’ foremost political opponent throughout the 440’s BC was Thucydides, son of Melesias, who once complained to King Archelaus of Sparta, "When I have thrown in him [Pericles] in a wrestling match, he says that he has not fallen, and persuades the spectators." (Plutarch Pericles 116).

One excerpt in particular summarizes the view of Thucydides the historian:

During the whole period of peace-time when Pericles was at the head of affairs, the state was wisely led and firmly handled, and it was under him that that Athens was at her greatest... It was he who led them, rather than they who led him and since he never sought power from any wrong motive, he was under no necessity of flattering them; in fact he was so highly respected that he was able to speak angrily at them and to contradict them. Certainly when he saw that they were going too far in a mood of over-confidence, he would bring them back in a sense of their dangers; and when they were discouraged for no good reason, he would restore their confidence. So, in what was nominally a democracy, power was really in the hands of the first citizen (R16).

Thucydides praised Pericles, but portrayed him more as an influential dictator rather than a democratic leader. It seems as though the Athenian citizens had little input on matters themselves, and Pericles was the sole former of public opinion during the height of his influence after the ostracism of Thucydides, son of Melesias.

Perhaps it was because he was so intelligent and thoughtful that his ideas took supremacy over the members of the assmebly, as they were not as highly gifted with his abilities. It is likely that most citizens were not as educated as Pericles, who associated with a number of great minds such as Sophocles and Anaxagoras.

According to Plato’s Socrates in Phaedrus, "This is what Pericles acquired to supplement his natural gifts... and learned the nature of mind and thought, matters on which Anaxagoras was continually discoursing, and drew from it what was useful for the art of speaking." (R17). Or, perhaps Pericles began with such strong support, that the Athenians eventually held his words to be the unquestioned truth.

In any case, Pericles made a number of reforms as the successor of Ephialtes during the 450’s BC that advanced the state of the Athenian democracy. The Athenian assembly passed a series of laws that gave direct and ultimate power to citizens in the assembly and the popular law courts or dikasteria, where a majority vote ruled. These reforms provided for the selection of most public offices by lot, for direct election, and for close control of all public officials. The new constitution reflected Pericles’ view of government, and allowed him to sustain his foremost position as leader of Athens (R18). In 458 BC, the small farmers, or zeugitai, who fought as hoplites became eligible for the archonship, which was previously limited to the top two economic classes. This allowed the zeugitai to join the Areopagus and discontinue its domination by the wealthy and noble of birth. This continued to reduce the power of the archons and Areopagus. The randomly chosen Council of 500, the assembly, and the popular law courts all benefited and furthered the democratic nature of Athenian government. Pericles continued to increase participation in the Athenian government by introducing laws that authorized payment to public officials (R19). The law was a result of the growing Athenian economy, the rise in the number of foreign disputes, and a great increase in the Athenian population. All of these things increased the pressure on the judicial system in Athens. Aristophanes calculated that the six thousand jurors or dikastai annually hears cases on about three hundred days every year (R20). Initially, the payments were only extended to jurors, but were eventually authorized for the council of 500, the archons, and to all public officials chosen by lot (R21). This payment to officials allowed the lower class citizens of Athens to participate without economic loss, and furthered the democratic nature of the city-state.

"Pericles #2", 2010, graphic drawing, by Anthony Peter Iannini

The next reform was the tightening of the conditions for citizenship. The law was passed in 451/50 BC and withheld citizenship to only those Athenians who had been born of an Athenian mother and father (R22). Previously, the children of an Athenian father and foreign mother were considered legitimate citizens. Now, citizenship was removed from the traditionally aristocratic community and given to the general public. The sovereignty of the Athenian assembly was upheld and power was removed from the hands of the upper classes.

Pericles was able to use his influence and power in order to make Athens a democracy through reform and legislation. But the motives and character of Pericles were challenged by his opposition, and have been questioned by historians and poets since the time of his leadership in Athens.

A number of observations have been made about the underlying nature and intentions of Pericles. His physical resemblance to Peisistratus made Pericles a target of comic poets and political opponents for charges of tyranny. Often, he was reluctant to face the public as a young man because of this similarity. "Very old men, noticing the sweetness of his voice and his glib and swift tongue in debate, were amazed by the similarity." (Plutarch Pericles 7.1). The wealth and Alcmaeonid descent of Pericles, together with his support of the public, also caused the Athenians to think about Peisitratus, the demagogue and tyrant.

There were also many other characteristics that made Pericles and odd choice for the new leader of Athens. He was not the type of leader that set out to win the personal affection of the masses as Cimon previously had done. Also, he never won any great military victories. Pericles often delegated public addresses to his followers, avoiding addressing the assembly himself. He associated with unconventional intellectuals, held strange religious views, and conversed regularly with those of foreign nationality.

Poets of the time referred to him in comedies as Zeus, indicating both his reputation and power, while pointing out his arrogance and controlling nature (R23). In 425 BC, six years after the Peloponnesian war, the comic poet Aristophanes recalls the vivid eloquence and impressive strength with which Pericles spoke, "For then in wrath, the Olympian Pericles. Thundered and ligthened and confounded Hellas." (R24).

Even after the Thirty Years Peace had been signed, and Pericles’ position seemed unassailable, the personal attacks on Pericles continued and set the stage for the largest complaint posed by his political opponents. The oligarchs set out to attack Pericles on the grounds that his use of public funds for the building program were misused and unchecked.

Those who were opposed to the democracy tried to destroy Pericles politically in the 440’s BC by corrupting his name. Thucydides, son of Melesias (not the historian), resorted to allegations of misconduct and reminded the Athenians of the days when the tyrants such as Hippias came with the Persians to attack Marathon. Pericles was characterized as proud, arrogant, and contemptuous. An account of Plutarch highlights the case of the opposition:

The demos is dishonored and in bad repute because it has removed the common money of the Hellenes from Delos to Athens. Pericles has deprived it of the most fitting excuse that it was possible to offer to its accusers, that it removed the common fund to this place out of fear of the barbarian and in order to protect it. Hellas certainly is outraged by a terrible arrogance and is manifestly tyrannized when it sees that we are gilding and adorning our city like a wanton woman, dressing it with expensive stones and statues and temples worth millions, with money extorted from them for fighting a war (R25).

This attack directed all blame towards Pericles and removed the focus from both the empire and the tribute collection itself. In this way, Pericles’ opposition forced the Athenians to question the actions and intentions of their leading statesman. The charges emphasized that Cimon’s policy had been abandoned and that the continued collection of tribute without a war against Persia had allowed Pericles to misuse surplus funds. Also, the opposition appealed to a traditional morality and an older sense of religious values.

The charges attacked tyranny and the use of funds for personal endeavors. If the oligarchs succeeded in their attack, then the supporting aristocrats would back the opposition to Pericles because it was they who were forced to pay the brunt of the building programs (R26). The debates that followed were fierce. Pericles immediately set out to justify his actions and clear his name of any wrongdoing:

But now that the city has prepared itself sufficiently with the things necessary for war, it is proper to employ its resources for such works as will bring it eternal fame and when they are completed, and while they are being completed will maintain its prosperity, for all kinds of industries and a variety of demands will arise which will awaken every art, put in motion every hand, provide a salary for almost the entire city from which it may at the same time be beautiful and nourished (R27).

"Ancient Grapes", 2004, by Anthony Peter Iannini

The extremely effective rebuttal captured the minds of the Athenians. Pericles gave reasons for his public building projects and appealed to the majority of citizens in Athens. His use of funds provided Athenian citizens with jobs and spread the wealth of tribute to the craftsman that the works would employ. The building programs brought about the fame and glory of Athens for centuries to come. The debates continued and Pericles consistently swayed the opinion of the assembly in his favor. He asked the assembly if they thought he had spent too much on the buildings project. Altogether too much, they replied. At this, Pericles made a bold and beautiful move in his argument. "Well then, let the expense of the buildings be mine and not yours. But the name inscribed on the monuments will be mine as well." There was a general outcry in his favor and he was asked to spend whatever he needed from the public funds (R28). This was a crucial shift in patronage. Previously, Cimon and many of his predecessors had used private wealth to gain supporters. Now, Pericles justified the use of Delian League funds, public funds, for his own expenditure. Through his use of fierce argument and quick rebuttal, Pericles was able to keep the opposition in check. According to Plutarch, it was Pericles who first introduced the proceedings that eventually led to the ostracism of Thucydides, son of Melesias, in the spring of 443 BC (R29). This action removed the political leader for ten years, and caused the opposing party to all but fall apart. At this point, Pericles was virtually unchallenged as the first man in Athens. Many historians have dated the ostracism of Thucydides, son of Melesias, as the turning point for the policies and character of Pericles in 444/3 BC. Some use the event to note a change from a skillful and popular "...demagogue to aristocrat, from champion of the poor to defender of property, from party leader to statesman." (R30).

These inferences into the words of Plutarch do not take into account the fact that Pericles was both a demagogue and an aristocrat before the ostracism. He was always a skillful politician and a powerful, influential voice. Also, Pericles was an aristocrat at all times; there was never a time when he gave up his wealth or influence among the other aristocrats.

From the point following the ostracism, Pericles championed the property classes while still defending the rights and participation of the poor. There was never a point in his career that he attacked the property classes, but merely took some of their power and delegated to the other classes.

The reality of the situation seems to be that Pericles continued to be both the democratic leader and statesman. Pericles did, of course, have more control after the ostracism of Thucydides, but this fact does not mean that he shifted his position dramatically at all. It may well have been just a natural result of removing opposition to gain more power.

The political situation in the aftermath of the signing of the Thirty Years’ Peace and the removal of Thucydides, son of Melesias, in 444/3 BC centered on control of the empire. The first and second most important tasks for Pericles were to maintain imperial control where it existed and also to restore it where it had been removed.

The tribute lists of the late 440’s BC revealed that in the Hellespontine, Thracian, and Carian districts, and also in many of the more remote inland towns, there were a number of defections. Pericles was faced with the important task of acting immediately to put down revolts and to deter any further defections. This seems to be the most likely reason that Pericles moved the reassessment up a year and used the period for considerable reorganization of the Athenian empire (R31).

The Samian revolt of 440 BC clearly demonstrated the imperial policy of Pericles. He immediately sent forty ships to the island in order to enforce the ruling. Pericles was initially successful in putting down the revolt and setting up a democracy. Soon after this, the oligarchs regained their power and declared war on Athens with a force of 700 hired mercenaries (R32). Pericles promptly returned to put down the revolt. The Samians were successful for a short time of about nine months, but the Athenian blockade proved too effective.

The walls of Samos were razed, their ships seized, and a heavy fine inflicted (R33). This was the fate of those who opposed the might of the Athenians. This revolt clearly revealed the power of Athens to do as she pleased with her allies. Also, it shows how Athens was becoming more and more self-interested under the leadership of Pericles.

Pericles saw the empire as a necessary instrument of war. It facilitated ships and tribute, which were, in his opinion, Athens’ greatest resources and best sources of victory during any war. The navy allowed Athens to bring war wherever she wished and ensure the stability of the empire.

The tribute meant that Athens had large sums of reserves, something which the Peloponnesian agricultural economy never hoped to acquire (R34). Pericles stated, "With your nay as it is today there is no power on earth- not the King of Persia nor any people under the sun- which can stop you from sailing where you wish." (R35).

Also, Pericles regarded the formation of the empire as a noble achievement for which his countrymen deserved the highest praise, especially those of the preceding and present generations. "For to the inheritance which they had received they added all the empire which we have now, and it was not without blood and toil that they handed it down to us of the present generation. And then we ourselves... added to the power of our empire and have recognized out state in such a way that it is perfectly well able to look after itself in peace and in war." (R36).

It is important to look at the reasons behind Periclean imperialism and how it was used to further the democracy in Athens. The actions of Pericles towards allied city-states in securing the empire were perceived as tyrannical. Revolts and revolutions were not to be tolerated and democratic governments would immediately replace any oligarchy that sought to become independent or ally with another power. The existence of the empire was necessary for Athens to become a super-power of the time.

The actual governing of the empire was the area in which democracy gained a foothold in the Aegean world, if only for a time. Pericles sought to bring in revenue so that he could fund the greatest city-state the Greeks had ever seen. The Athenians were able to increase and maintain their naval power which had begun under the direction of Themistocles, thereby giving the lower classes employment and participation that had never been seen before.

During this time in Athens, the Periclean building projects employed thousands and strengthened the pride and glory of the city-state. And, the laws concerning citizenship and payment for participation in the government allowed the Athenians as a whole the become the rulers of the empire, not just a single man.

Events in the Aegean world eventually brought Athens to the brink of war, removing the focus on democratic reforms. In 431 BC, the peace between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians disintegrated, forcing Pericles to deal with wartime affairs. The Peloponnesians seem to have been the aggressors, as the Athenians maintained a defensive posture under the cautious leadership of Pericles.

Thucydides and Plutarch praised the wisdom and foresight with which Pericles lead Athens during the first few years of the war. Pericles, unlike his predecessors, was not reckless and willing to risk losing the empire over a ideological war with Sparta and her allies.

The defensive strategy of Pericles took into account both the advantages and disadvantages of Athens. The Spartans were historically superior in land battles, so Pericles advocated avoiding this type of warfare at all costs. He warned the Athenians, "We must not, through anger at losing land and homes, join in battle with the greatly superior forces of the Peloponnesians. If we won a victory, we should still have to fight them again in just the same numbers, and if we suffered a defeat, we should at the same time lose our allies, on whom our strength depends, since they will immediately revolt if we are left with insufficient troops to send against them." (R37).

When the Spartan army came, Pericles ordered the Athenians to desert their land and take up residence within the walls of Athens. It seems as though the policies and views of Pericles during the outbreak of the war had the safety and prosperity of Athens in mind (R38).

Thucydides wrote, "For Pericles had said that Athens would be victorious if she bided her time and took care of her navy, if she avoided trying to add to the empire during the course of the war, and if she did nothing to risk the safety of the city itself. But his successors did the exact opposite..." (R39).

After the death of Pericles in 429 BC, dispute over Athenian leadership arose again, accompanied by a departure from Periclean strategy. Thucydides rightfully comments that the new strategies may have been responsible for the eventual fall of Athens. Plutarch agrees, stating that Pericles was, "...the saving bulwark of the state," (Plutarch Pericles 39.5) and arguing that in his absence, "...the public life of Athens was to be polluted by a rank growth of corruption and wrongdoing." (Plutarch Pericles 39.5). After this period, the influence of Pericles began to fade as new policies and new leaders saw the downfall of Athens. Historians can only speculate what the outcome of events would have been if Pericles had not fallen victim to the plague.

Pericles furthered the democracy in Athens during the mid fifth century BC, and attempted to secure the empire through his actions concerning allies and foes. His qualities as a brilliant politician and persuasive public speaker allowed him to gain the support of the Athenian citizens.

Because every citizen of Athens took part in the governing of the empire, Pericles stayed in control only as long as he persuaded the Athenians to agree with him and allow him that position. Through Pericles’ policies and projects, Athens saw a time of prosperity and democracy among its citizens that was unheard of in the ancient world.

References:
______________________

1. Plut. Pericles 1. 1.
   
2. C. M. Bowra, Periclean Athens. New York, 1971, p. 12-14.
3. Plut. Aristides 7.
4. Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian Fleet, p. 116-118
5. Donald Kagan, Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy, New York, 1991, p. 40-41.
6. D. Kagan, Pericles, p. 41-44.
7. Plut. Cimon 14. 4.
8. Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens XXVII. 1.
9. Thuc. 1. 102. 3.
10. D. Kagan, Pericles, p. 44.
11. Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens XXV. 4.
12. Plut. Pericles 16. 3.
13. H. Bengtson, History of Greece, Ottawa UP, 1988, p. 124.
14. Thuc. 2. 65. 9.
15. Thuc. 2. 65. 5.
16. Thuc. 2. 65. 5-10.
17. Plat. Phaedrus 268 e.
18. Mogens H. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy, Oxford, 1991, p. 38.
19. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 27. 3.
20. Aristophanes, The Wasps 661ff.
21. Thuc. 8. 69. 4.
22. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 27. 3. Thuc. 8. 69. 4.
23. D. Kagan, Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, p. 141.
24. Aristophanes, Frogs, 530-531.
25. Plut. Pericles 12. 2.
26. D. Kagan, Outbreak, p. 143
27. Plut. Pericles 12. 4.
28. Plut. Pericles 14. 1-2.
29. Plut. Pericles 14. 2.
30. The first change is mentioned by Plutarch (Per. 9. 1-2 and 15. 1-2), the next by Beloch (Die Attische Politik, 19-21), the last by Hignett (op. Cit., 253-257). Raphael Sealy (Hermes, LXXXV [1956], 234-247) argues against a dramatic change.
31. D. Kagan, Outbreak, p. 150.
32. Thuc. 1. 115.
33. C.D. Edmonds, Greek History, Cambridge UP, 1924, p. 157.
34. C. M. Bowra, Periclean, p. 101.
35. Thuc. 2. 62. 2.
36. Ibid. 2. 36. 2-3.
37. Thuc. 1. 143. 3.
38. Plut. Pericles 39. 2.
39. Thuc. 2. 65. 1.