DEFINICIO NES CO N CEPTUALES

Thucydides’ History and the Aristotelian Athenian Politeia are two main sources for our understanding of the law reform. Though it is generally agreed that they are compatible and even complementary to each other, their reports are contradictory at two points: one is about the sequence of two oligarchic regimes, the Four Hundred and the Five

Thousand, and the other relevant issue is their views of the Athenian politician

Theramenes and the so-called ‘moderate oligarchs’ who are responsible for the overthrow of the democracy and the establishment of the Four Hundred in the year of 411.40

Firstly, regarding the sequence of the two oligarchic regimes, Thucydides reports that the Four Hundred existed before the Five Thousand, the former taking control of Athens from the democracy while claiming to set up a government of the Five Thousand in an appropriate time.41 However, the Four Hundred tried their best to put off the transfer of power to the government of the Five Thousand. By contrast, Athenian Politeia reports that it is the Five Thousand that replaced the democracy and then granted all its

responsibilities to the Four Hundred.42 Their accounts are plainly incompatible at this point.

40 _{For the view that they are largely compatible, see Rhodes 1981: 363; Harris 1990: 259. For their}

irreconcilable contradiction on the sequence of the Four Hundred and the Five Thousand, see HCT V 1981: 256; Harris 1990: 260-1.

41

Thuc. 8.67.

42_{Ath. Pol. 29-32. For a fuller comparison of the sources, see Hignett 1952: 356 ff; Rhodes 1981: 362 ff;} HCT V: 184 ff; Harris 1990.

This difference is relevant to their another disagreement over the evaluation of the Four Hundred.43 Athenian Politeia is more sympathetic to the Four Hundred than Thucydides. According to the latter, the Four Hundred used the constitution of the Five Thousand only as a cover for their autocratic ambition, holding political power in their own hands after the overthrow of the democracy, rather than transferring it to the government of the Five Thousand as they had promised they would. By contrast, the version of Athenian Politeia suggests that at least some of the Four Hundred, that is, Theramenes and his followers, were sincere supporters for the constitution of the Five Thousand, since they put it into practice immediately after they overthrew the democracy. Besides, the two-stage procedure via the democracy and the Five Thousand by which the Four Hundred was established enhanced the legitimate appearance of the Four Hundred, for the regime seems in this light more like a result of thorough and peaceful discussion.

All in all, the images of the Four Hundred by Thucydides and Athenian Politeia are much different from each other. According to the latter, the Four Hundred replaced the

democratic government with theirs through a largely lawful procedure. The demos abdicated mainly because they believed in the oligarchs’ ability to secure the alliance of Persia against Sparta. The democracy passed Pythodorus’ proposal of setting up a constitutional commission, allowed any discussion against the established laws, and finally agreed to be replaced by the government of Five Thousand for the duration of the war against Sparta and Persia. The Five Thousand, in turn, handed over the government to the Four Hundred with the task of tackling the immediate military crisis. Thus, the Four Hundred was granted with autocratic power not because of their conspiracy and

violence, but due to the serious crisis by the folly of the democracy. The sympathy of Athenian Politeia with the Four Hundred is revealed clearly in its conclusion that the Four Hundred was distinguished in their rule of Athens, though they soon stepped down for their military and diplomatic failure.44

Thucydides, on the other hand, shows no such sympathy, reporting that the Four Hundred overthrew the democracy and acquired the autocratic power through crafty conspiracy of murder and terror. The demos submitted to the Four Hundred not because of its trust in the Four Hundred, but due to fear and suspicion among the people spread by the Four Hundred. Though there were formal consent of the assembly and the promise to set up the government of the Five Thousand in the future, these could not conceal the fact that the Four Hundred pursued their political ambition by killing their fellow Athenians, overthrowing the democracy, and finally betraying their fatherland to its Spartan enemy. Besides, the short-lived rule of the Four Hundred was a complete failure in all other aspects except their subversion of the democracy. In their diplomacy and warfare, they did not succeed in securing the alliance of Persia or the peace treaty with Sparta. Defeated by Sparta off Eretria, they lost Euboea, a subject ally more useful to Athens than Attica. Domestically, the Athenian navy at Samos was in revolt. The city of Athens was also divided, many citizens finally marching in arms from Piraeus to the city,

demanding the government of the Five Thousand. It is because of the hesitant nature of Sparta, Thucydides observes, that the Athenian empire barely escaped the fate of destruction that it was led into under the Four Hundred.45

44_{Ath. Pol. 33.1-2.} 45 _{Thuc. 8.47 ff.}