Implicating the demos: a reading of Thucydides on the rise of the Four Hundred

Abstract

In the midst of his account of the events, Thucydides says that it was difficult to switch Athens from democracy to the oligarchic rule of the Four Hundred (8.68.4). Most modern scholars have agreed, viewing the rise of the Four Hundred primarily as a coup effected by violence, terror and deceit. This interpretation does not conform to Thucydides' narrative (8.47-70), however, which shows that it was not very hard to end the Athenian democracy. Although terror, violence and propaganda have their place in Thucydides' account, modern treatments overemphasize them and so ignore or gloss over Thucydides' charge that the Athenian people did not resist oligarchy very strenuously and so bear a large share of responsibility for it. In Thucydides' narrative Peisander et al. are open about plans for oligarchy (if not for the extremely limited oligarchy that they eventually put in place at Kolonos) both on Samos and in Athens, and meet little resistance from democratic supporters. In addition, Thucydides' rhetoric repeatedly mutes what resistance there is, as if to underscore its weakness. Thucydides' Athenians for the most part quickly and easily abandon their democracy. There was a ‘terror’ campaign, but its scope, effect and need has been exaggerated. In particular, there is no reason to think that the location of the Kolonos meeting – where the Athenians voted the limited oligarchy of the Four Hundred into power – terrified them into doing so. Thucydides' comment on the difficulty of the task of the Four Hundred is ironic. There is a jarring contrast between Thucydides' judgement and his narrative which, when recognized, compels readers to re-examine their own assumptions and expectations. The attention modern commentators have given to Thucydides' words about intimidation and propaganda have left them deaf to the other interesting story Thucydides has to tell about the role the Athenian demos played in the move to oligarchy.

Who Were The Five Thousand?

“…Pol. 29.5): " […] and that all the rest of the functions of government should be entrusted to those Athenians who in person and property were most capable of serving the state, not less than five thousand" (τὴν δ᾽ ἄλλην πολιτείαν ἐπιτρέψαι πᾶσαν Ἀθηναίων τοῖς 411, see Gomme, Andrewes & Dover 1981: 165-256 (with other sources and a discussion on that date); Kagan 2012Kagan [1987: 131-86 (with bibliography); David 1996;Heftner 2001: 1-108;Taylor 2002 (who argues that there were many more people in favour of the conspirators and change than Thucydides leads us to believe); Sancho 2004;Hornblower 2008: 938-64;Shear 2011: 19-69 (with chronological tables of the events described by Thucydides and Aristotle, which underscore the contradictions between the two narratives); Tuci 2013 who analyses the manipulation of the will of the people (as well as discussing Taylor's thesis on p. 87); David 2014 (also criticising Taylor's thesis on pp. 18 and 22).…”

From Democracy in Name to Democracy in Practice? Contextualizing the Transition to Oligarchy of 411 BCE in Athens

“…Since Alcibiades had been condemned for blaspheming against the 'Mysteries' (see 6.27-29 and 6.61), they would naturally be concerned at his recall." Taylor (2002) 102.…”

“…Taylor argues that this proves Peisander's deception as cf. Taylor (2010) 204: "Especially because of Thucydides' explicit statement that Peisander 164 spike clearly to the people, I read these words to mean that the people responded poorly at first to a proposal that they perceived to be about oligarchy." Taylor (2010) 194-5.…”

“…Peisander's meeting in Athens, of course, was not the whole story of the transition to oligarchy. Nevertheless, in order to further clarify the importance of Taylor (2002) 102.…”

“…The cf. Taylor (2002) ! 114 movement toward oligarchy suggests a deeper implicit argument of Thucydides's text: that the effective functioning of democracy requires the basic needs of the dêmos to be met.…”