The Greek Tyrant Cleisthenes

30-11-2006

How elitist were the reforms of Cleisthenes?

Cleisthenes came from the Alcmaeonoid family of Athenian Greeks. Previously, Pisitratus had set up a tyranny in Athens which Pisistratus’s son Hippias had inherited. With the help of the Alcmaeonid family, Cleisthenes was able to overthrow Hippias, but lost power to Isagoras, another Athenian seeking power, who began another tyranny with none being able to match his power in Athens. He was not a popular ruler and was eventually banished by the council backed up by the people of Athens. Cleisthenes returned and took over as ruler of Athens. Cleisthenes was a revolutionary in that he brought about radical forms of democracy to Athens for the first time through his reforms.

    “Now Cleisthenes of Athens, following the lead of his grandfather and namesake Cleisthenes of Sicyon, decided, out of contempt, I imagine, for the Ionians, that his tribes should not be the same as theirs, so as soon as he had won the support of the common people of Athens, previously held in contempt, he renamed the tribes and increased their number…” [1] Cleisthenes abolished the traditional four tribes that existed (who were chosen on family and descent) and instead organised the people into ten tribes based on where they lived. The new tribes were named mostly after Athenian heroes. The way the tribes were organised now meant that a more political and fair system was in placed compared to the former social division where the heads of the most important families would rule. Every tribe had members from the three regions of Athens (city, coast and inlands). This was so that all the interest groups possible were being represented. It did bring unity of Attica because all the three areas were being equally represented and each could voice their opinions better. The assembly of the council where they vote on issues and discuss various aspects of economic and politic interest, was opened to any registered citizen which allows them to see and feel closer to the workings of their economy. As well as serving to be a more fair representation of the people, the new tribe system served to weaken the power of the aristocracy who had in fact been the cause of tyrannies of the past. [2]The other aristocrats had their regions split into different tribes which served to reduce their influence. Cleisthenes however did maintain his own family and tribe stay a lot more powerful than the others. Their strongholds were not split up between the other tribes.

    Cleisthenes also changed Solon’s (the previous law-giver over fifty years before Cleisthenes’ rule) council structure from the four hundred four tribe based council to five hundred ten tribe council. Each tribe contributed fifty people each who were chosen by the people to represent them. The fifty people chosen had to be from the top three economic classes as well as be over thirty years old. In this way, although power has been diluted past the oligarchy of past, the reform is fairly elitist in that you still had to be rich to have a chance of leading. Another point to note is that although all male citizens could vote, some of them in the more rural areas of Attica chose not to as it would mean going on a trip to Athens. In these areas, aristocrats had a better chance as they could afford the journeys.

    Cleisthenes also introduced local councils (demes) which consisted of hamlets, villages or even cities. This is the predecessor or mayors. Cleisthenes sought to take the focus away from being a member of the tribes to being a member of the state.  New citizens would be judged on ancestry, but Cleisthenes changed it so being a member of a deme was enough to qualify for citizenship. This again was weakening the hold of the elite aristocrats. Religion was left untouched by Cleisthenes. He was aware of the importance of religion and so he left the older social structures than had strong religious ties.

      Ostracism is often credited to Cleisthenes[3]. This is the process of voting to exile a citizen of Athens for a period of ten years. This was often used to exile people that seemed to be gaining too much power so a tyranny can be prevented in the future. Strictly, ostracism is not the same as exile as property is retuned to the ostracised person when they return. A possible reason for the invention of ostracism is that as the aristocratic system was undermined and Pisistratus, the previous tyrant, had powerful, wealthy relatives that remained in Athens, Cleisthenes hoped to avert the danger of tyranny.

    Cleisthenes ignored foreign policy and relations with Sparta and the rest of Greece deteriorates into war. He also made it a requirement that each tribe contribute a general who commanded a hoplite regiment and horsemen. Herodotus remarks on how effective the military of Athens was in its democratic infancy, especially in successfully dealing with the Boeotian and Euboean invasions. [4]

    Cleisthenes named his reforms ‘isonomia’ which translates to “equality under the law”. When looking at the reforms of Cleisthenes outlines, we can see that there are elements of elitism in some of them, the vast majority of the reforms were quite the opposite. They served to break down the elite and give the people more power over their leaders. The reforms led to a more active participation by the people of Attica, especially those that were not represented in the past. The re-shaping of the Athenian society was definitely a positive one which led to a more efficient way of governing. So in conclusion, I would say that the reforms were not very elitist at all but quite the opposite.

Bibliography

Herodotus – The Histories

Encyclopaedia Britannica – Cleisthenes

Aristotle – Athenian Constitution and Politics

J.B. Bury – A History of Greece

www.wikipedia.org

---

[1] Herodotus – The Histories Book 5, 69

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica - Cleisthenes

[3] Aristotle – Athenian Constitution and Politics

[4] Herodotus – The Histories

The Greek "polis"

26-10-2006

What aspects of Greek religion were significant in the development of the Greek polis?

The Greeks were a polytheistic society who were deeply religious. Different areas over Greece often concentrated on different gods whom they thought to be their local or more important deity. They had a god for pretty much every aspect of everyday life. Before the polis, the Greek religion was probably a simplistic pagan one where each area praying to their own god alone.[1] I would think that basic pagan gods were worshipped and throughout time a myth grew around their stories, and eventually connected the god’s up to family trees that now exist. The evidence for this in my view is that all the gods are in their physical prime (even though some are fathers and sisters and mothers to each other) although this maybe a show of perfection for the worshippers. Although one god is usually favoured amongst others in regions, there is a hierarchy that exists when the basis of the “religion” (the Greeks did not see it as such) is better established. The twelve main gods (Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Ares, Hephaestus, Athena, Hermes, Dionysus and Demeter) are recognised by all Greeks, but there is no universal truth about too much else The basis of Greek religion revolved around a few things; building grand temples, animal sacrifice, offerings, honouring and prayer.

     Before the polis in the early Dark Age, all that existed were small settlements with no society as such except very basic trade. The polis which just means city-states (cities that governed themselves) is the ancestor of today’s cities and even countries. By definition, a polis is not a geographical or territorial unity, but a religious, social and political one. Religion gave a story for the identity, past and geography of the polis. [2]A sizeable polis is usually centred around an acropolis, which were basically the core of the cities where they grow around. One of the better known examples is the Acropolis of Athens. They are usually situated higher up mountains for initial defence purposes. A typical polis had at least one temple and we can already see religion coming into play. Since worship before a temple or common place of worship was at home where gods could not be so easily publicised to each other, the significance of religion would have been weaker. As soon as temples came into play, a social network and moral code was made. In ancient Greece, temples were more about the gods and we can see that Greeks took great pride in their work as temples were often extremely lavish and even rebuilt to increase the aesthetics. Sacrifices and other social events at a temple set goals and helped to integrate people into the community allow it to flourish into a more social and eventually political power. Rituals help to solidify the society’s social basis.

     A big part of the Greek society is athletics and art. The basis of both these acts is in pleasing the gods. Every grand festival and games held were to tribute the gods. For example, the Olympian Games are to honour Zeus and Pelops (mythical king of Olympia).

         "One aspect of increasing solidarity was a stronger cohesion among those who bore arms.... But despite its general implications, warfare, as well as the exercise of power that went with it, was the business of only a small fraction of society....The creation of political organs that institutionalized new modes of exercising public authority could in itself achieve nothing unless it was backed up by a social body whose motives and desire for unity were inspired by something other than war....religion was the only agent to effect the entire social body....It signalled the emergence of a society that seemed to acquire self-awareness as it retook possession of the past by endowing it with a sacred character....It was thus through religious life that a new kind of social body was gradually to take shape...."[3]  As Francois de Polignac says, religion can be seen as the vehicle for a thriving new society to grow around. The creation of a polis was helped strongly by the worship of the same god in a region. A society is more likely to spring up between people with the same beliefs and this is what happened. The tribes of Athens came to join together as they shared religious ceremonies, and so the regional loyalty was reduced.[4] It was also probably a political advantage as you can be united under your god (e.g. Athens under Athena) and “laws” can be passed for what the gods desired. For example, the Pisitratide regime used to promote cults in the common people to weaken the power of the aristocrats. The fact that each polis had their own deities for protection, their own unique customs and festivals, means that they were differentiated from other any other polis, but also united within their own polis.

    Despite all these points for religion being significant in the development of the polis, we must not forget all the other reasons for a city state, like the social and political. A polis is far more efficient than a spread of isolated settlements, or even, for the time, a country. A polis was a manageable size in which political and other experimentation could take place.

    We come to what particular aspects of religion may have been particularly important in the creation and maintaining of the polis. The Oracle at Delphi (Pyhthia) probably provided a basis for leaders to come to for guidance. This source was obviously infallible, so it connected people under the leader in this way. Lycurgus of Sparta sought the oracle for help was told to write the constitutional laws which the people were behind since it came from the word of the oracle. If the oracle were to say a god was angry and a city would be under their wrath unless they performed a certain task, again the people would be united. The oracle certainly helped to bring the people of Greece together.

    The priests of temples had a lot of power in Ancient Greece. As a priest was ‘an assistant to a divinity’[5], they had a lot of say and could override government laws if they so wished to.

    The basis of a polis is that a relatively small number of people are united under a rule. To do this, you need patriotism and a common cause. This was provided by the many aspects of the Greek religion in pleasing gods. The Olympic Games are a perfect example. They have the people of a polis united in rivalry, but not with another polis which would hold off the thought of empires and countries.

    Since the development of the polis was in the earlier archaic period, all evidence is questionable. There are often myths surrounding the creation of a polis involving oracles and the gods, used by the cities to glorify their ancestry. This while making the evidence unreliable does prove the point that religion was an important enough factor to base the grand beginnings of the city.

         As well as religion helping with the founding of the polis, the eventuality is that the polis provides a basis for the religion to operate. Three outlines on how the polis provides a framework for religion is outlines by Carrie Dobbs; 1. the polis interacted with other poleis and with the Panhellenic religious dimension/ usually done in Amphictionies or Leagues. 2. Religious participation was only for the citizens of the community which articulated the religion. 3. If you visited the sacra of another polis you could only participate as a xenos (foreigner). [6] Essentially because the specifics of the religion was for a certain polis only, you find identity within your polis, which is not necessarily a point of how religion developed the polis, but more a point of how religion continues to develop a polis.

    To conclude, Greek religion played a big part in the creation of the Greek polis. The main aspects of the religion that brought about the change concerned things that united people, whether under a common cause, under fear or under similar beliefs and practices. This helped to unite people, but only within a smaller area and therefore create a polis. Only a polytheistic religion than concerned areas with their own favourite gods could have created a city-state. A monotheistic religion would have edged towards a larger scale unity such as a country.

Bibliography

Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter in OXFORD READINGS IN GREEK RELIGION, 2/28/02

Francois de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City State  (trans. Janet Lloyd, Chicago, 1995). 151-152

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis

www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/edelciv1.htm

www.fjkluth.com/religion.html

---

[1] www.wikipedia.org/ancient_greek_religion

[2] Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter in OXFORD READINGS IN GREEK RELIGION, 2/28/02

[3] Francois de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City State (trans. Janet Lloyd, Chicago, 1995). 151-152

[4] www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/edelciv1.htm

[5] www.fjkluth.com/religion.html

[6] Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter in OXFORD READINGS IN GREEK RELIGION, 2/28/02