The Athenian triumph and tragedy

Athens began her history under conditions quite different from those which
prevailed in Sparta. The district of Attica had not been the scene of an armed
invasion or of bitter conflict between opposing races. The Ionian penetration of
that area was gradual and largely peaceful. As a result, no military caste imposed
its rule upon a vanquished people. Furthermore, the wealth of Attica consisted of
mineral deposits and splendid harbors rather than agricultural resources. Athens,
consequently, never remained a predominantly agrarian state but rapidly
developed a prosperous trade and a culture essentially urban. Until the middle of
the eighth century B.C. Athens, like the other Greek states, had a monarchical
form of government. During the century that followed, the council of nobles, or
Council of the Areopagus, as it came to be called, gradually divested the king of
his powers. The transition to rule by the few was both the cause and the result of
an increasing concentration of wealth. The introduction of vine and olive culture
about this time led to the growth of agriculture as a great capitalistic enterprise.
Since vineyards and olive orchards require considerable time to become
profitable, only those farmers with abundant resources were able to survive in
the business. Their poorer and less thrifty neighbors sank rapidly into debt,
especially since grain was now coming to be imported at ruinous prices. Thesmall
farmer had no alternative but to mortgage his land, and then his family and
himself, in the vain hope that some day a way of escape would be found.
Ultimately many of his class became serfs when the mortgages could not be paid.

Bitter cries of distress now arose and threats of revolution were heard. The
middle classes in the towns espoused the cause of the peasants in demanding
liberalization of the government. Finally, in 594 B.C., all parties agreed upon the
appointment of Solon as a magistrate with absolute power to carry out reforms.
The measures which Solon enacted provided for both political and economic
adjustments. The former included: (i) the establishment of a new council, the by
universal manhood suffrage, with power to hear appeals from the decisions of the
magistrates. The economic reforms benefited the poor farmers by canceling
existing mortgages, prohibiting enslavement for debt in the future, and limiting
the amount of land any one individual could own. Nor did Solon neglect the
middle classes. He introduced a new system of coinage designed to give Athens
an advantage in foreign trade, imposed heavy penalties for idleness, ordered
every man to teach his son a trade, and offered full privileges of citizenship to
alien craftsmen who would become permanent residents of the country.

Significant though these reforms were, they did not allay the discontent. The
nobles were disgruntled because some of their privileges had been taken away.
The middle and lower classes were dissatisfied because they were still excluded
from the offices of magistracy, and because the Council of the Areopagus was left
with its powers intact.

Worse still was the fact that Solon, like certain rulers of modern times, attempted
to divert the people from their domestic troubles by persuading them to embark
upon military adventures abroad. An old quarrel with Megara was revived, and
Athens committed her fate to the uncertainties of war. The chaos and
disillusionment that followed paved the way in 560 B.C. for the triumph of
Peisistratus, the first of the Athenian tyrants. Although he proved to be a
benevolent despot, he nevertheless destroyed many of the liberties the people
had previously gained, and Hippias, one of his two sons who succeeded him, was
a ruthless and spiteful oppressor.

In 510 BC Hippias was overthrown by a group of nobles with aid from Sparta.
Factional conflict raged anew until Cleisthenes, an intelligent aristocrat, enlisted
the support of the masses to eliminate his rivals from the scene. Having promised
concessions to the people as a reward for their help, he proceeded to reform the
government in so sweeping a fashion that he has since been known as the father
of Athenian democracy. He greatly enlarged the citizen population by granting full
rights to all freemen who resided in the country at that time. He established a
new Council of Five Hundred and made it the chief organ of government with
power to prepare measures for submission to the assembly and with supreme
control over executive and administrative functions. Members of this body were
to be chosen by lot from lists of candidates submitted by the denies or townships.
Any male citizen over thirty years of age was eligible. Since the Council was so
large, it was to be divided into ten committees of fifty, each to manage the affairs
of government for a month. Cleisthenes also expanded the authority of the
assembly, giving it power to debate and pass or reject the measures submitted by
the Council, to declare war, to appropriate money, and to audit the accounts of
retiring magistrates. Lastly, Cleisthenes is believed to have instituted the device of
ostracism, whereby any citizen who might be dangerous to the state could be
sent into honorable exile for a ten-year period. The device was quite obviously
intended to eliminate men who were suspected of cherishing dictatorial
ambitions.

The Athenian democracy attained its full perfection in the Age of Pericles (461-
429 B.C.). It was during this period that the assembly acquired the authority to
initiate legislation in addition to its power to ratify or reject proposals of the
Council. It was during this time also that the famous Board of Ten Generals rose
to a position roughly comparable to that of the British cabinet. The Generals were
chosen by the assembly for one-year terms and were eligible for re-election
indefinitely. Pericles held the position of Chief Strategus or president of the Board
of Generals for more than thirty years. The Generals were not simply
commanders of the army but the chief legislative and executive officials in the
state, gradually assuming most of the prerogatives which Cleisthenes had given to
the Council of Five Hundred. Though wielding enormous power, they could not
become tyrants, for their policies were subject to review by the assembly, and
they could easily be recalled at the end of their one-year terms or indicted for
malfeasance at any time.

Finally, it was in the Age of Pericles that the Athenian system of courts was
developed to completion. No longer was there merely a supreme court to hear
appeals from the decisions of magistrates, but an array of popular courts with
authority to try all kinds of cases. At the beginning of each year a list of 6000
citizens was chosen by lot from the various sections of the country. From this list
separate juries, varying in size from 201 to 1001, were made up for particular
trials. Each of these juries constituted a court with power to decide by majority
vote every question involved in the case. Although one of the magistrates
presided, he had none of the prerogatives of a judge; the jury itself was the judge,
and from its decision there was no appeal. It would be difficult to imagine a
system more thoroughly democratic.

The Athenian democracy differed from the modern form in various ways. First of
all, it did not extend to the whole population, but only to the citizen class. While it
is true that in the time of Cleisthenes (508-502 B.C.) the citizens probably included
a majority of the inhabitants because of his enfranchisement of resident aliens, in
the Age of Pericles they were distinctly a minority. It may be well to observe,
however, that within its limits Athenian democracy was more thoroughly applied
than is the modern form. The choice by lot of nearly all magistrates except the
Ten Generals, the restriction of all terms of public officials to one year, and the
uncompromising adherence to the principle of majority rule even in judicial trials
were examples of a serene confidence in the political capacity of the average man
which few modern nations would be willing to accept. The democracy of Athens
differed from the contemporary ideal also in the fact that it was direct, not
representative. Contrary to the traditional view, the Athenians understood the
principle of representation, but they never applied it except in a limited way in
the selection of members of the Council of Five Hundred. They were not
interested in being governed by men of reputation and ability; what vitally
concerned them was the assurance to every citizen of an actual voice in the
control of all public affairs. In a word, their ideal was not efficiency in government
but democracy.

In the last century of her existence as an independent state Athens fought two
great wars. The first, the war with Persia, was an outgrowth of the expansion of
that empire into the eastern Mediterranean area. The Athenians resented the
conquest of their Ionian kinsmen in Asia Minor and aided them in their struggle
for freedom. The Persians retaliated by sending a powerful army and fleet to
attack the Greeks. Although all Greece was in danger of conquest, Athens bore
the chief burden of repelling the invader. Sparta, especially, rendered but little
assistance until the struggle was almost over. The war, which began in 493 B.C.
and lasted with interludes of peace for about fourteen years, is commonly
regarded as one of the most significant in the history of the world. The decisive
victory of the Greeks put an end to the menace of Persian conquest and
forestalled at least for a time the submergence of Hellenic ideals of freedom in
Oriental despotism. The war also had the effect of strengthening democracy in
Athens and making that state the leading power in Greece.

The other of the great struggles, the Peloponnesian War with Sparta, had results
of a quite different character. Instead of being another milestone in the Athenian
march to power, it ended in tragedy. Athens was so completely humbled that she
never again played an eminent role in Greek politics. The causes of this war are of
particular interest to the student of the downfall of civilizations. First and most
important was the growth of Athenian imperialism. In the last year of the war
with Persia, Athens had joined with a number of other Greek states in the
formation of an offensive and defensive alliance known as the Delian League.
When peace was concluded the League was not dissolved, for many of the Greeks
feared that the Persians might come back. As time went on, Athens gradually
transformed the League into a naval empire for the advancement of her own
interests. She used some of the funds in the common treasury for her own
purposes. She tried to reduce all the other members to a condition of vassalage,
and when one of them rebelled, she overwhelmed it by force, seized its navy, and
imposed tribute upon it as if it were a conquered state. Such high-handed
methods aroused the suspicions of the Spartans, who feared that an Athenian
hegemony would soon be extended over all of Greece.

A second major cause was to be found in the social and cultural differences
between Athens and Sparta. Athens was democratic, progressive, urban,
imperialistic, and intellectually and artistically advanced. Sparta was aristocratic,
conservative, agrarian, provincial, and culturally backward. Where such sharply
contrasting systems exist side by side, conflicts are almost bound to occur. The
attitude of the Athenians and Spartans had been hostile for some time. The
former looked upon the latter as uncouth barbarians. The Spartans accused the
Athenians of attempting to gain control over the northern Peloponnesian states
and of encouraging the helots to rebel. Economic factors also played a large part
in bringing the conflict to a head. Athens was ambitious to dominate the
Corinthian Gulf, the principal avenue of trade with Sicily and southern Italy. This
made her the deadly enemy of Corinth, the chief ally of Sparta.

The war, which broke out in 431 B.C. and lasted until 404, was a record of frightful
calamities for Athens. Her trade was destroyed, her democracy overthrown, and
her population decimated by a terrible pestilence. Quite as bad was the moral
degradation which followed in the wake of the military reverses. Treason,
corruption, and brutality were among the hastening ills of the last few years of
the conflict. On one occasion the Athenians even slaughtered the whole male
population of the state of Melos, and enslaved the women and children, for no
other crime than refusing to abandon neutrality. Ultimately, deserted by all her
allies except Samos and with her food supply cut off, Athens was left with no
alternative but to surrender or starve. The terms imposed upon her were drastic
enough: destruction of her fortifications, surrender of all foreign possessions and
practically her entire navy, and submission to Sparta as a subject state.

John Hale's portrait of ancient Athens and its navy is an informative and fast-
paced account that lives up to the phrase "epic story" that appears in the subtitle
of its US edition. His style and approach is engaging: chapters with titles such as
"Of heroes and hemlock"; bite-sized episodes centred on one individual or
campaign; dramatic, powerful and evocative writing that brings the actors of the
narrative to life.

At times, he drifts away from his initial idea of Athens viewed from the oar-bench
in favour of giving more attention to large-scale sea battles. From the perspective
of the crewmen, however, such conflicts were a rarity. Naval life consisted instead
of a wearisome round of routine patrols and training exercises, irregular pay and
winters away from home. The battle descriptions themselves are excellent,
combining the clarity of a historian who has personally surveyed the sites with the
empathy of someone who is no stranger to the oar. Hale emphasises brilliantly
the skill and strength required of the men who crewed Athens' triremes, and also
the fundamental unpleasantness of their task; back-breaking toil undertaken in
what were essentially hot, smelly and cramped wooden tubes.

Praising the vividness of writing may imply a tacit criticism of the scholarship and
hint that corners have been cut in terms of rigorous accuracy for the sake of a
neater or more satisfying tale. Hale's picture of Athens is lively and engaging, and
it accords well with the available evidence, but it is clearly not intended primarily
as a detailed work of historical reference. At times he oversimplifies controversial
issues, uncritically accepts certain questionable orthodoxies (eg Pericles was
good, his successors were bad), and gives credence to some taller tales from less
reliable sources. Such choices are an inherent part of this genre of historical
writing, and Hale is conscientious enough to detail his sources in the
bibliographical notes that follow the main text.

The central thesis is a sound one. Hale argues, contrary to the received opinion
that the navy and its people were undervalued and culturally invisible, that ships
and the sea permeated every facet of Athenian society, including drama, sex,
religion and politics. The strength of the navy was the fundamental underpinning
of the power and wealth of classical Athens, and by extension the cultural and
political achievements of the so-called Golden Age.

Yet there are some major problems with Hale's treatment of the Athenian navy.
He advocates the idea that the power of the poorest Athenian citizens in the
democracy was a direct result of their service in the fleet. This was an idea first
propagated by philosophers of the 5th and 4th centuries BC as a convenient
explanation for the political arrangements of their day. Hale is far from alone in
accepting this retrospective reconstruction as historical truth; it is a common and
long-held misconception.

Furthermore, Hale's view of the navy is one in which virtually all the rowers
(except in times of acute national emergency) were Athenian citizens. This is very
doubtful. Indeed, one of the most fascinating aspects of the navy was that it
represented a microcosm of all the men of the city. It was not just poor citizens
rowing under the command of their wealthier neighbours: side by side with the
Athenians were significant numbers of foreign mercenaries, slaves and
immigrants newly settled in the city, all pulling together within the tight confines
of Athens' "wooden walls". So the idea that the rowers legitimised their power in
the democracy by their naval service is very difficult to maintain; many in Athens'
trireme crews had no political rights at all.

Greek tragedy is a form of theatre from Ancient Greece and Asia Minor. It

reached its most significant form in Athens in the 5th century BC, the works of
which are sometimes called Attic tragedy. Greek tragedy is an extension of the
ancient rites carried out in honor of Dionysus, and it heavily influenced the
theatre of Ancient Rome and the Renaissance. Tragic plots were most often based
upon myths from the oral traditions of archaic epics. In tragic theatre, however,
these narratives were presented by actors. The most acclaimed Greek tragedians
are Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.

Tradition attributes Thespis as the first person to represent a character in a play.

This took place in 534 BC during the Dionysia established by Peisistratus. Of his
tragedies we know little except that the choir was still formed by Satyrs and that,
according to Aristotle, he was the first to win a dramatic contest, and the first
(ὑποκριτής) who portrayed a character rather than speaking as himself.
Moreover, Themistius, a writer of the 4th century AD, reports that Thespis
invented the prologue as well as the spoken part (ῥῆσις). Other playwrights of the
time were Choerilus, author of probably one hundred and sixty tragedies (with
thirteen victories), and Pratinas of Phlius, author of fifty works, of which thirty-
two are satyr plays. We have little record of these works except their titles. At this
time, satyr plays were presented alongside tragedies. Pratinas definitely
competed with Aeschylus and worked from 499 BC.
Another playwright was Phrynichus. Aristophanes sings his praises in his plays: for
example, The Wasps presents him as a radical democrat close to Themistocles.
Besides introducing dialogues in iambic trimeter and including female characters
for the first time, Phrynichus also introduced historical content to the genre of
tragedy (e.g. in the Capture of Miletus). His first victory in a contest was in 510 BC.
At this time, the organization of plays into trilogies began.
A spectator of a Greek dramatic performance in the latter half of the fifth century
B.C. would find himself seated in the theatron, or koilon,a semi-circular, curved
bank of seats, resembling in some respects the closed end of a horseshoe
stadium. ... Below him, in the best location in the theatre, is the throne of the
priest of Dionysus who presides in a sense over the whole performance. The
theatron is large-in fact, the one in Athens, in the Theatre of Dionysus, with its
seats banked up on the south slope of the Acropolis, seated approximately 17,000
persons.
The spectator sees before him a level circular area called the orchestra, which
means literally the "dancing place". ... In the centre of the orchestra stands an
altar. A part of the dramatic action will take place in the orchestra, as well as the
manoeuvres and dance figures performed by the Chorus as they present their
odes. To the right and left of the theatron are the paradoi, which are used not
only by the spectators for entering and leaving the theatre, but also for the
entrances and exits of actors and the Chorus. Directly beyond the
circular orchestra lies the skene or scene building. ... In most plays the skene
represents the facade of a house, a palace, or a temple. The skene normally had
three doors which served as additional entrances and exits for the actors.
Immediately in front of the scene-building was a level platform, in the fifth
century B.C. in all probability only a single step above the level of the orchestra.
This was called the proskenion or logeion where much of the dramatic action of
the plays takes place. Flanking the proskenion were two projecting wings, the so-
called paraskenia. It must be remembered that the skene, since at first it was only
a wooden structure, was flexible in its form, and was probably modified
frequently.
The theatre voiced ideas and problems from the democratic, political and cultural
life of Athens. Tragedies can discuss use the Greek mythical past as a metaphor
for the deep problems of current Athenian society. In such plays, "the poet
alludes directly to fifth-century events or developments, but moves them back
into the mythological past. In this category [can be placed] Aeschylus’ Persians
and Oresteia."
In the case of Aeschylus' tragedy The Persians, it was performed in 472 BC in
Athens, eight years after the battle of Salamis, when the war with Persia was still
in progress. It tells the story of the Persian fleet's defeat at Salamis and how the
ghost of former Persian King Darius accuses his son Xerxes of hubris against the
Greeks for waging war on them.
"The possibility that a reflection of Athens is to be seen in Aeschylus’ Persian
mirror could explain why the poet asks his audience to look at Salamis through
Persian eyes and elicits great sympathy for the Persians, including Xerxes."
Other tragedies avoid references or allusions to 5th century BC events, but "also
draw the mythological past into the present."
The performances of the tragedies took place in Athens on the occasion of the
Great Dionysia, feasts in honor of Dionysus celebrated in the month
of Elaphebolion, towards the end of March. It was organized by the State and
the eponymous archon, who picked three of the richest citizens to pay for the
drama's expenses. In the Athenian democracy wealthy citizens were required to
fund public services, a practice known as liturgy.
During the Dionysia a contest took place between three plays, chosen by
the archon eponymous. This procedure might have been based on a provisional
script, each of which had to submit a tetralogy consisting of three tragedies and
a satyr play. Each tetralogy was recited in one day, so that the recitation of
tragedies lasted three days. The fourth day was dedicated to the staging of five
comedies. At the end of these three days a jury of ten people chosen by lot from
the body of citizens chose the best choir, best actor and best author. At the end
of the performances, the judges placed a tablet inscribed with the name of their
choice inside an urn, after which five tablets were randomly selected. The person
who received the highest amount of votes won. The winning author, actor and
choir were thus selected not purely by lot, but chance did play a part.
The passion of the Greeks for the tragedy was overwhelming: Athens, said the
critics, spent more on theatre than on the fleet. When the cost for the shows
became a sensitive subject, an admission fee was instated, alongside the so-
called theorikon, a special fund to pay for festival's expenses.
The origin of the word tragedy has been a matter of discussion from ancient
times. The primary source of knowledge on the question is
the Poetics of Aristotle. Aristotle was able to gather first-hand documentation
from theater performance in Attica, which is inaccessible to scholars today. His
work is therefore invaluable for the study of ancient tragedy, even if his testimony
is open to doubt on some points.
According to Aristotle, tragedy evolved from the satyr dithyramb, an Ancient
Greek hymn, which was sung along with dancing in honor of Dionysus. The
term τραγῳδία, derived from τράγος "goat" and ᾠδή "song", means "song of the
goats," referring to the chorus of satyrs. Others suggest that the term came into
being when the legendary Thespis (the root for our word thespian) competed in
the first tragic competition for the prize of a goat (hence tragedy).