The phenomenon of unscrupulous politicians stoking tensions in society for their own ends is as old as democracy itself.
By John Leonard –
“[T]he main cause of the overthrow of democracies is the outrageous behavior of demagogues.’ Aristotle, Politics I.1304b.20
As ancient Athens moved away from kingship and Archaic-era tyranny during the 6th c. BCE, formerly monarchial powers and duties were taken on by public magistrates, whose ranks eventually swelled to more than a thousand by the Classical 5th and 4th c. BCE. Nevertheless, through family or tribe connections, political associations (especially hetaireiai, clubs of wealthy Athenian men, although note the term hetaira refers instead to a courtesan) and social networking, often at symposia (upper-class dinner/drinking parties), the Athenian aristocracy maintained its hold on power.
In the face of rising popular anger over oppressive debt, increasing prices, inadequate representation and other perceived injustices, Solon proposed reforms in 594/593 BCE that addressed all these issues and defined four classes of citizens (based on volume of annual cereal production): the Pentakosiomedimnoi (500-measures), Knights, (300 measures), Zeugitai (200 measures) and Thetes (everyone else). Solon called for all citizens to participate in the Assembly (Ekklesia) and may have created the Council of 400 (Boule).
A second reformer, Cleisthenes, reorganized Attica in 508/507 BCE into 10 geographically-based tribes, rather than four family-based tribes. He also increased the Boule to 500 members, 50 from each tribe, and established a more objective system of sortition for filling government positions and jury panels. To combat tyranny, Cleisthenes instituted ostracism.
The Ekklesia met on the Pnyx Hill, where speakers stood on an elevated bema to address a gathering of citizens that usually numbered at least 6,000 and may on occasion have reached tens of thousands. As the prosperity and population of Classical Athens expanded, along with its domestic and imperial administration, the lowest class (thetes) became increasingly necessary (e.g., as naval rowers and sailors) and thus potentially powerful.
Pericles and other 5th-c. BCE politicians understood this and frequently took steps to appease these ordinary citizens, often through largesse. Final decisions in Athens’ direct democracy were made by the people (demos) in the Ekklesia where some politicians saw the jostling crowd, with its evolving role and collective desire to be courted and entertained, as their own opportunity.
As ancient Athens moved away from kingship and Archaic-era tyranny during the 6th c. BCE, formerly monarchial powers and duties were taken on by public magistrates, whose ranks eventually swelled to more than a thousand by the Classical 5th and 4th c. BCE. Nevertheless, through family or tribe connections, political associations (hetaireiai) and social networking, often at symposia (upper-class dinner/drinking parties), the Athenian aristocracy maintained its hold on power.
In the face of rising popular anger over oppressive debt, increasing prices, inadequate representation and other perceived injustices, Solon proposed reforms in 594/593 BCE that addressed all these issues and defined four classes of citizens (based on annual cereal production): the Pentakosiomedimnoi (500-measures), Knights, (300 measures), Zeugitai (200 measures) and Thetes (everyone else). He called for all citizens to participate in the Assembly (Ekklesia) and may have created the Council of 400 (Boule).
A second reformer, Cleisthenes, reorganized Attica in 508/507 BCE into 10 geographically-based tribes, rather than four family-based tribes. He also increased the Boule to 500 members, 50 from each tribe, and established a more objective system of sortition for filling government positions and jury panels. To combat tyranny, Cleisthenes instituted ostracism.
The Ekklesia met on the Pnyx Hill, where speakers stood on an elevated bema to address a gathering of citizens that usually numbered at least 6,000 and may on occasion have reached tens of thousands. As the population and prosperity of Classical Athens expanded, along with its domestic and imperial administration, the lowest class (thetes) became increasingly necessary (e.g., as naval rowers and sailors) and thus potentially powerful.
Pericles and other 5th-c. BCE politicians understood this and frequently took steps to appease these ordinary citizens, often through largesse. Final decisions in Athens’ direct democracy were made by the People (Demos) in the Ekklesia where some politicians saw the jostling crowd, with its evolving role and collective desire to be courted and entertained, as their own opportunity.
EXPLOITING THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE
Athens in the late 5th c. BCE was a city at war. And wars, as we know too well today, bring change and encourage extremism. Troubled times also offer opportunities and can lead to more overt demonstrations of the power (and weakness) of the people.
Ambitious Athenian politicians, Connor argues, many of them young and seeking a fast way to the top, understood that the reward would be great if means could be found to activate and organize the phauloi, the “unpretentious” citizenry. Herein is the origin of a new kind of democracy, a new pattern of politics that was to become increasingly conspicuous.
A host of flamboyant, new politicians appeared in the post-Periclean era, including Cleon, Alcibiades, Cleophon, Syracosius, Hyperbolus and Anytus. If Old Comedy is to be believed, the demagogues were often known by colorful nicknames such as “Bleary Eyes”, “Smoky”, or “Hempy”.
In reflection of their livelihoods, Cleon was “The Tanner”, Cleophon “The Lyre-maker”, Lyscicles “the Cattle-Dealer”, Eucrates, the “Flax-Merchant.” Anytus, one of Socrates’ accusers, was also a leather-tanner. Alcibiades was admired for his charm and striking handsomeness. Sometimes their very names became proverbial expressions: “Beyond Hyperbolus” implied someone extremely litigious.
To make their rhetorical points, demagogues often used inflammatory bullying language and theatrical behavior. Aristotle reports that Cleophon made a dramatic entrance into the assembly with a speech ready against peace negotiations and his breastplate girded on. One more obscure demogogue, Syracosius, is portrayed in Eupolis’ comedy as”running about the bema yelping like a hound dog.”
Demagogues made grand shows of emotion and empathy, so as to connect with ordinary citizens on a visceral level, and won additional favor acting as the people’s governmental informants.
Through their outrageous language and bullying behavior the demagogues broke away from traditional, conservative ways. They renounced the usual political ties (as Cleon showily did; Pericles more discreetly before him) and may not have objected much to comedic, occupation-related epithets (or accusations), as they would have benefited from appearing more working-class.
In reality, many demagogues were high-born and affluent. Alcibiades, Plutarch observes, had everything necessary to be an Old School politician, but preferred to be a demagogue.
FAME AND FORTUNE
The primary incentive for adopting a demagogic approach was the political shortcut it provided to fame and fortune. Clever rhetoric and shocking conduct saved demagogues from having to spend years establishing respectable records of reliable military and political service, as Themistocles, Cimon, Ephialtes and Pericles had all done.
In the demagogic era, Nicias and Alcibiades were also generals, perhaps also Cleophon and Hyperbolus, but Cleon had to be publicly cornered before he would take command (aided by a real general) and deal with the Spartans trapped on Sphacteria Island in 425 BCE.
Many demagogues were prosperous businessmen who viewed government and popular politics as a means to further increase their wealth. Isocrates writes,”…these men dare to say that their concern for public affairs prevents them from attending to their own business; but it appears that their neglected affairs have made greater gains than they would have ever thought to pray for.”
A BAD REPUTATION WELL DESERVED?
Athenian demagogues often received a lot of bad press but was the heavy criticism deserved and accurate?
In an increasingly elaborate and divisive government, notes Connor, Athenians “needed a new breed of specialized, semi-professional politicians, who could master and explain the complex details of their city’s business.” Competent, well informed demagogues such as Hyperbolus helped the common citizenry to see behind the oligarchic curtain of traditional politics.
Aristotle accuses Cleon of shouting and dressing improperly, but in conservative Athens even his use of hand gestures while speaking was considered unorthodox and vulgar. Thucydides and Aristophanes were also sharp critics, but the historian was an ardent Pericles supporter and both men had previously suffered prosecution by Cleon. Besides, as today, politicians were fair game for writers of parody and satire.
Aristotle writes “…As long as Pericles was the leader of the people, the state was still in a fairly good condition, but after his death everything became much worse. For then the people first chose a leader who was not in good repute with the better people.” However, in present-day terms, late-5th c. BCE Athenians seem to have intentionally embraced leaders who were not “Washington Insiders” and not “owned” by traditional political groups. The crime of many demagogues sometimes appears to have been that they came from the “wrong” families, those not traditionally connected or politically active.
In the end, demagoguery ancient or modern is all about exploitation, and therefore must be guarded against. The ancient demagogues were a sordid group that thrived on turmoil and social division. Cleon openly sowed distrust of intellect, claiming that “states are better governed by the man in the street than by intellectuals who want to appear wiser than the laws and often bring ruin on their country.”
Demagoguery in Athens was also risky and vengeful. Hyperbolus was ostracized ca. 416 BCE; Cleophon was ultimately removed from power and executed in 404 BCE on a trumped up charge; and Anytus was likely motivated by Socrates’ personal attacks when he contributed to the philosopher’s prosecution and death in 399 BCE.
Positive and negative lessons can be learned from ancient democracy, especially today when democracy internationally is again under attack with a decline in the free press, often violent suppression of dissenting voices and a troublingly widespread return to the worst sort of demagoguery.
Sources:
W. R. Connor. The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens. Princeton University Press, 1971.
Victoria Wohl. Love Among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens. Princeton University Press, 2002.
NOTE: This article is reprised from archaeologist-historian John Leonard’s original September 13, 2016 article in the acclaimed blog Greece.Is. com (https://www.greece-is.com/learning-from-the-demagogues-of-ancient-athens/). Except for the first photo – from Patrick Hunt, 2016, all other images are also from the original article and are by Anna Tzortzi.