DEFINICIONES CONCEPTUALES

This section provides a general historical account of how Athens was transformed from the chaos of civil war to order and harmony. Instead of providing a story from the reign of the Thirty to the restored democracy, this section focuses on the process leading to the agreements of reconciliation. This story starts with the revolt of the democrats in exile, the oligarchic defeat at Phyle and Munychia, and the intervention of the Spartan King Pausanias, as a result of whose arrangements the reconciliation agreement was achieved. After explaining the main contents of this agreement, we will argue for its success according to the fulfilment of its goals, as well as the respect it received from the Athenians. Also included is their reconfirmation of Pericles’ law of citizenship, which,

though not an initial provision in the agreements, is essential to an understanding of the meaning of the amnesty and reconciliation and Athenian politics in general.

i. Democratic Revolt and Restoration

As argued above, the sources are largely in agreement. They all indicate that, while the Thirty and the three thousands occupied the city of Athens, the democrats in exile fought back from Phyle via Piraeus under the leadership of Thrasybulus and Anytus.50

According to Xenophon, there were only about seventy of them at the beginning, but the number grew rapidly to well over a thousand, including foreigners and slaves, in their march towards Athens. The democrats won two decisive battles at Phyle and Munychia. After their defeat at Phyle the Thirty tried to maintain their power with more murders and terrors inside the city. The result was that more Athenians left the city and joined the opposition. After the battle of Munychia the oligarchy was obviously on the brink of collapse. The Thirty were deposed and many citizens in the city preferred negotiation with the democrats. However, the new elected leaders, with the support of extreme oligarchs and the Spartan General Lysander, continued fighting.51 Finally, the Spartan King Pausanias intervened and defeated the democrats outside Piraeus. He was said by Xenophon to be a political enemy of Lysander and well disposed toward the democrats. In any case, it is because of his efforts that an agreement of reconciliation between the democrats and oligarchs was achieved.52 Accordingly, all Athenians returned to Athens, an amnesty was announced, and Eleusis was separated from Athens as an independent city for those oligarchs who did not want to live with the democrats. The democrats took

50

See also CAH VI: 36.

51 _{Xen. Hell. 2.4.1- 29; Diod. Sic. 14.32.1-33.5.}

it back two years later through force as well as persuasion and the amnesty. The

democracy also accomplished many important domestic reforms after its restoration. In its foreign policy it followed Sparta until the two poleis broke off in 395.53

ii. The Goals of Reconciliation

It is necessary to discuss the goals and terms of reconciliation by which the Athenians’ achievement of reconciliation can be assessed. It is a plausible assumption that the goal of the reconciliation was restoration of harmony in Athens as well as consolidation of the democracy. This does not mean that these aims were sincerely supported by every individual Athenian and remained so. What is intended here is to understand the reconciliation and assess its success from a teleological perspective.54

However, democratic consolidation and political concord are two conflicting tasks. Consolidation of popular sovereignty could be itself a source of domestic division and bitterness, since there remained many non-democratic or even antidemocratic citizens in post-war Athens. This question has aired recently by two scholars. N. Louraux argues that the two tasks could not coexist, as one would have to be sacrificed for the other. In fact, she argues, the democrats gave up all their rights as the triumphant party. Since the democrats chose to live with their former enemies, they must nullify their victory and give up their sovereign power. She says:

53

B. Strauss 1986: 110 ff.

54 _{According to the realist perspectives we have seen so far, there was hardly any long-term goal. Loening}

says (1987: 148) that ‘the agreement had been negotiated in order to resolve the immediate crisis and could not satisfactorily provide for the uncertainties of the future.’ At any rate, Wolpert (2002a: 87ff) argues, the Athenians invented its meanings and goals in their interpretations of the reconciliation project. Ostwald (1986: 510, 537) believes that the reconciliation was a step towards the final aim of the sovereignty of law. He pays no enough attention to the contradictions that the authority of amnesty was established through an illegal execution of a democrat, and that the amnesty was itself a compromise of legal justice.

Shall we say that once the people have shown themselves to be the city, they must espouse the communal life? I would answer that an appeal to the polis, however, justified it may have been in its time, later became very effective in neutralizing democratia. Or more precisely: in neutralizing kratos as an integral part of the word. From then on, Athenian orators, like Isocrates in the Areopagitiucus, praised the democracy for its ‘mildness’.55

Wolpert argues that the democracy has to transform from a partisan regime of the poor people to an impartial government shared by all citizens, including the rich and the oligarchs. He borrows a sociological concept called the process of ‘departicularization’, through which ‘historical discourses and practices were emptied of local and concrete meaning to become “the property of all and no one”’.56 Through this kind of process, the demos was no more the aggregate of only poor citizens, but the abstract image of the citizenry as a whole. Both the scholars argue that, either giving up its power or

transforming the meaning of demos, the democracy was sacrificed for the unity of Athens.

Interestingly, the priority of political concord is attested in ancient sources of both public speeches and private teachings. Almost all ancient writers, when referring to the goal of reconciliation, claim that its aim was to achieve political concord, the task of democratic consolidation fading into the background.57 This phenomenon can be seen in public speeches. For example, Andocides wrote, ‘you [the Athenians] have shown the greatest generosity and wisdom in devoting yourselves, not to revenge, but to the preservation of

55

Loraux 2002: 258. For kratos as superiority over others, see Loraux 2002: 69.

56 _{Wolpert 2002a: 110.}

your city and the reuniting of its citizens. 58 (o9mo&noian tw~n politw~n) Lysias wrote in his funeral speech that the democrats ‘revived … the harmony that had been shattered by faction.’59 (o(monoou~san de\ a)nti\ stasiazou/shv a0pe/fhnan) Isocrates said that the determination shown in the people’s payment of the oligarch’s war debt brought Athens into concord.60 (o9mo&noian) The same emphasis is also found in the writings that did not appeal to the public. Xenophon writes that ‘oaths were sworn that there should be an amnesty for all that had happened in the past, and to this day both parties live together as fellow citizens.’61 (o9mou~ te politeu&ontai) The author of Athenian Politeia described the payment of the oligarchs’ war debt ‘as the first step to concord’. 62 (o9mo&noia) Finally, in a Platonic work of funeral speech, all that is concerned is healing of harm and

divisions. ‘The sole cause for all that [reconciliation] was their genuine kinship, which provides them, not in word but in fact, with a firm friendship based on ties of blood. We must also remember those who die at each other’s hands in that war and try to reconcile them in ceremonies such as today’s by what means we have—prayers and sacrifices— praying to the gods below who have power over them, since we ourselves are reconciled as well.’63

With these ancient one-sided testimonies, one might think that there was actually only one true aim of reconciliation, this being the unity of Athens.64 Yet, if this had been the case, the demos would have not fought the civil war in the first place. It is more

58 Andoc. 1.140. 59 _{Lys. 2.63.} 60 _{Isoc.7.68-69.} 61 _{Xen. Hell. 2.4.43.} 62 Ath. Pol. 40.3. 63 Pl. Menex. 244 a-b.

64 _{For example, Dorjahn believes that the democrats were overwhelmed by their fellow sympathy. Dorjahn}

reasonable to believe that the democrats struggled to find some balance between the two tasks rather than sacrificed one for the other. After all, the democracy revived and remained dominant over other internal political groups for eighty years. The author of Athenian Politeia might exaggerate in saying that the demos returned Athens by its own efforts alone, but with Sparta away and the oligarchs defeated it was, as he said, truly fair for the demos to take the government.65

iii. The Terms of Reconciliation66

The following table is a comparison of sources regarding the terms of reconciliation.

Xen. Hell. 2.4.38 Ath. Pol. 39 Diod. Sic. 14.33.6

Just. 5.10.7

Peace between the democrats and oligarchs Return of all citizens Extreme oligarchs withdrew to Eleusis. Right to migrate in Eleusis

[the amnesty announced two years later]

Right to migrate in Eleusis The amnesty Return of debts separately Return of citizens Right to migrate in Eleusis Autonomy of Athens Return of citizens The Ten withdrew to Eleusis

[The amnesty

announced two years later]

There is a difference in the date of the amnesty. According to Xenophon and Justin, the amnesty was announced on the reunification of Athens and Eleusis in about 401.67 That is, there is a gap of two years between the treaty of reconciliation and the amnesty.

65_{Ath. Pol. 41. 1.} 66

These terms of reconciliation under Pausanias’ arrangement were never transformed into Athenian laws or decrees; however, all Athenians had taken the oath to observe them. See Dorjahn 1946: 21; Loening 1987: 29-30.

Athenian Politeia, on the other hand, included the amnesty in the treaty of reconciliation in 403. It had support from Andocides, 68 and almost all scholars prefer its version to Xenophon’s, believing that the Amnesty was one of the initial terms of reconciliation in 403. 69

However, no ancient writer gave a complete account of the terms of reconciliation.70 Among them Athenian Politeia provides the fullest account, though its account is not without question in its authority and coverage. Peter J. Rhodes suspects that its author consulted only certain political pamphlets instead of original official documents.71 The source has no report on certain important issues such as the post-war relationship with Sparta, the constitutional arrangement of Athens, and the solution of controversies over property confiscated by the Thirty.72

Through examination of the extant sources and related discussion of historians, the terms are reconstructed here around five essential issues: the relationship with Sparta,

oligarchs’ migration to Eleusis, the amnesty, the problem of confiscated property, and the constitutional order after the civil war.

The Relationship of Sparta and Athens: Both the restored democracy at Athens and the oligarchs in Eleusis remained subject allies of Sparta.73 Athens’ capitulation terms of 404 presumably remained valid, meaning that, amongst other terms, the Athenians were obliged to have ‘the same enemies and the same friends as Sparta had’ and followed

68 _{Andoc. 1.81.}

69 _{Andoc.1.81. Dorjahn 1946: 5; Krentz 1982: 104. For a detailed discussion, see Loening 1987:26-8.} 70

Loening 1987: 30.

71

Rhodes 1981: 463- 4.

72 _{See also Rhodes 1981: 465, 471-472.}

‘Spartan leadership in any expedition Sparta might make either by land or sea.’74 In 403 Pausanias was said to instruct the Athenians to negotiate with Sparta on one of the terms that the democrats and oligarchs remained its allies.75 Both the democrats and oligarchs had financial and military obligations for Sparta’s military activities76 Regarding its internal affairs, Diodorus reports that Athens ruled by its own laws.77 It is not very clear as to what degree of autonomy Athens was granted by Sparta. Charles Hignett believes that Sparta should have learned from the failure of the Thirty that it was better not to intervene in the internal affairs of Athens.78 Ostwald argues that the Athenians had complete freedom in internal affairs.79 Stephen Todd, in contrast, believes that its internal autonomy was very limited.80 However, considering that the Athenians were capable of accomplishing so many fundamental political and military projects, such as law reform, military actions against the oligarchic city of Eleusis, and rejection of a law draft of limited citizenship that had alleged support of Sparta, Athens seemed to enjoy a very high degree of autonomy as long as it followed Sparta in its foreign policy. In any case, it should be noted that Sparta’s dominance over Athens lasted only a few years. Athens plotted unsuccessfully for an alliance with Persia in 397. Two years later it officially broke away from Sparta. In other words, Sparta was not a decisive factor in the long-term development of Athenian politics.

The Migration of the Oligarchs to Eleusis: While all Athenians were returning to Athens, the oligarchs who feared the revenge of the democrats or who had other considerations in

74 _{Xen. Hell. 2.2.20.} 75 _{Xen. Hell. 2.4.35.}

76_{Ath. Pol. 39.2; Xen. Hell. 3.2.25.} 77 Diod. Sic. 14.33.6. 78 Hignett 1952: 293. 79 _{Ostwald 1986: 498.} 80 _{Todd 1986: 183-4.}

mind were free to migrate to Eleusis.81 They actually built their own city there, ‘retaining their full rights, and having sovereignty and self-government, and enjoying their own revenues.’82 These migrants had the power to decide who amongst the inhabitants of Eleusis could live with them, not the other way around. Besides, the oligarchic Eleusis and democratic Athens regarded each other as hostile cities. The citizens were not allowed to visit the other city, let alone hold official positions. The celebration of the Mysteries was the only exception to this rule.83 However, the separation of Athens and Eleusis was, according to Athenian Politeia, obstructed by Archinus and then ceased to be in 401when Eleusis went back to Athens.

The Amnesty: This is the most famous term that is often used as an alternative term to the reconciliation.84 According to Athenian Politeia, the amnesty was expressed in an unequivocal tongue, no one being ever allowed to revenge (mnhsikakei=n) on any one for the past events. There were, however, two exceptions. The first concerned the cases of murder.85 Though people who had collaborated with the Thirty in arresting citizens were pardoned, those who had committed assault or murder with their own hand should be put on trial according to traditional laws. Second, certain core oligarchic officers like the Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten enjoyed the protection of amnesty only after their account

81 _{Xenophon and Justin report that certain core oligarchs like the Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten were}

ordered to live in Eleusis, but, according to Athenian Politeia and Andocides, they could still live in Athens if their audit submitted and accepted. Xen. Hell. 2.4.37; Just. Epit.5.10.7 Ath. Pol. 39.6; Andoc.1.90. Scholars do not think there is a real contradiction between Xenophon and Athenian Politeia at this point. See Rhodes 1981: 469-470; Loening 1987: 24-5, 42; Krentz 1982: 104-5

82

Ath. Pol. 39. 1.

83

Ath. Pol. 39.1-5.

84 _{Loening 1987: 20.}

of their past behaviour had been submitted to and accepted by the courts.86 This most important term should be quoted in full:

[T]hat trials for homicide be in accordance with the ancestral ordinances, if a man has killed or wounded another with his own hand. And that there be a universal amnesty for past events, covering everybody except the Thirty, the Ten, the Eleven, and those that have been governors of Piraeus, and that these also be covered by the amnesty if they render account. And that those who had been governors in Piraeus render account before the courts held in Piraeus, but those in the city before a court of persons that can produce ratable property; or that those who will not render account on these terms do migrate.87

Solution of Confiscated Property: Many citizens and foreigners living in Athens were deprived of their property by the Thirty, and much of this was then sold or redistributed. This problem obviously constituted one of the most contentious issues besides the cases of homicide. The situation was much more complex when the property in question turned up in the hands of a seemingly innocent buyer. However, there are only a few existing sentences that inform us of its solution. The principle, scholars agree, is that the original owners had the right to reclaim his immovable property, such as land and buildings, even when it had been sold; while they could only get back the movable

86

For the difference between Athenian Politeia and Andocides in their accounts of the oligarchs who were excluded from the amnesty, see Rhodes 1981: 469-470; Loening 1987: 24-5, 42; Krentz 1982: 104-5.

property when it remained unsold.88 A special office was set up to deal with this issue. A fair amount of confiscated property, obviously, did not go back to the original owners under this regulation. Many democrats, even powerful generals like Thrasybulus and Anytus, had to accept permanent loss of their property.89

The Restored Constitutional Order: Almost all sources agree that the ancestral laws were the principle of post-war constitution, though their meanings needed further investigation even to contemporary Athenians.90 However, it is unclear whether there was any

provision about the form of restored government in the reconciliation agreement. In fact, though it might seem strange, there is nothing about this important issue in reports of the agreement. Athenian Politeia says nothing on this issue in its account of the

reconciliation agreement.91 According to Xenophon and Justin, there was only the return of all the Athenians and their obligation to maintain peace among them. Diodorus reports that Athens was to be governed by its own laws (toi=v idi/oiv no/moiv), which suggests that Sparta granted Athens autonomy in internal affairs.

According to Xenophon and Justin, it was only later at the first Assembly of the restored democracy that Thrasybulus declared that Athens was to be governed under the ancestral laws.92 Diodorus reports that Thrasybulus, when contacted by the Thirty earlier, also demanded that all citizens should go back to Athens and the ancestral constitutions be restored. There was no discussion as to whether the government should be democratic or

88 _{Lys. Fr. 7. Against Hippotherses: 35-45. Rhodes 1981: 465, 471-2; Krentz 1982: 105-6; Loening 1987:}

51-52.

89 _{Isoc. 18.23; cf. Isoc. 16.46; Rhodes 1981: 471; Loening 1987: 52.} 90

This constitutional principle is clearly reconfirmed in Teisamenus’ decree, see Andoc. 1. 83. For the