Constitution of Athens

CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS, a work attributed to the philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.c.), forming one of a series of Constitutions, 158 in number, which treated of the institutions of the various states in the Greek world. The work was extant until the 7th century A.D., or even later, but was subsequently lost. A copy of the treatise was discovered in Egypt in i 8go and acquired by the trustees of the British Museum, for whom it was edited by Mr. (now Sir) F. G. Kenyon, at that time an assist ant in the department of manuscripts.

Date.

It may be regarded as established by internal evidence that the treatise was composed sometime between 329 and 322 B.C. In c. 54,7 an event is dated by the archonship of Cephisophon (320 ; on the other hand in c. 42, the author proceeds to de scribe the constitution as it existed in his own day—a democracy —but the democratic constitution was abolished, and a timocracy established, on the surrender of Athens to Antipater, at the end of the Lamian war, in the autumn of 322.

Authorship.

There can be no question that the treatise dis covered in Egypt is identical with the work upon the constitution of Athens which is repeatedly referred to by writers such as Plutarch, and by the scholiasts and lexicographers, and which passed in antiquity under the name of Aristotle. Of 9t quotations from Aristotle, bearing on Athenian constitutional history, of which 58 are expressly referred to "The Constitution of Athens," 78 are found in our treatise. The remaining 13 must have come either from the beginning of the work, which is wanting in the papyrus, or from the latter portion of it, which is mutilated. Controversy has centred mainly round the question, In what sense is the treatise "Aristotelian"? Is it the work of Aristotle himself, or is it the work of a pupil or pupils and so has merely proceeded from his school? The objections urged against the attribution of the work to Aristotle himself have been based partly on three contradictions between the Constitution and the Politics and partly on style. One of the contradictions is easily resolved, and as regards the re maining two there is nothing improbable in the suggestion that as the Constitution is a later work than the Politics, Aristotle found reason in the interval to change his mind on certain points. In the matter of style, stress has been laid on the occurrence in the "Constitution" of many words that are not found in the other writings of Aristotle, and, conversely, on the absence of so many of the expressions that are typical of his style. But such arguments are beside the point; the "Constitution" is a historical work intended for popular use; hence its style must necessarily be different from that of a philosophical treatise.. The one serious argument against the attribution of the work to Aristotle himself is that drawn from its general character. Many scholars, deeply concerned for the credit of Aristotle as a historian, have argued that a treatise so inadequate could not possibly have come from his pen. They point to the absence of proportion in the narrative part, to the acceptance of erroneous views and to the undue pre dominance of the anecdotic element. But on the other side is the consensus of antiquity. Every ancient writer who mentions the "Constitution" attributes it to Aristotle, while no writer is known to have questioned its genuineness. Again the date which can with certainty be assigned to its composition, on internal grounds, coincides with the period of Aristotle's second residence in Athens. Doubtless a series such as the "Constitutions," 158 in number, might well be entrusted to pupils working under the di rection of their master, but the "Constitution of Athens" must have been infinitely the most important of the series and one that would most properly be reserved for the master's hand.

Contents.

The treatise consists of two parts, one historical, and the other descriptive. The first 41 chapters compose the former part, the remainder of the work the latter. The first part comprised an account of the original constitution of Athens, and of the changes through which it successively passed. The papyrus, however, is imperfect at the beginning, but a reference to chap. 41 makes it clear that the missing chapters contained a sketch of the original constitution and of the changes introduced in the time of Ion and Theseus. In this connection it is remark able that while mention is made of "the constitution of Theseus," there is no reference to the incorporation of Attica into one state or process of Sunoikismos, traditionally associated with the nam,e of Theseus. Such a process may have been effected only gradually and may not have been complete before the 7th century, but the final result of it surely merited a place among the "changes," or constitutional landmarks, of Athenian history. Its importance in the minds of the Athenians of the age of Pericles is sufficiently indicated by Thucydides (II. chap. 15) who points to the festival of the Sunoikia.

The second part describes the constitution as it existed at the period of the composition of the treatise (329-322 B.c.) ; the sub jects which receive the fullest treatment are the Council, the Archons and the Law-courts.

Sources.

The labours of several workers in this field, notably Keil and Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, have rendered it comparatively easy to form a general estimate of Aristotle's indebtedness to previous writers.

Among these sources are unquestionably Herodotus, Thucydi des, Xenophon, and the poems of Solon. There is now among critics a general consensus in favour of the view that the most important of his sources was the Atthis of Androtion. An Atthis is a local history of Athens and Attica. This Atthis was published only a few years earlier than the "Constitution," probably about 340. From it are derived not only the passages which are annalistic in character and read like excerpts from a chronicle (e.g., chap. 13 init., in which is described the "anarchy" which followed the legislation of Solon, and chap. 22, which contains an account of "ostracism" and a list of ostracized statesmen), but also most of the matter common to the "Constitution" and to Plutarch's Solon. It is also generally agreed that among the sources was a work, written towards the end of the 5th century B.c., by an author of oligarchical sympathies, with the object of defaming the character and policy of the heroes of the democracy. This source can be traced in passages such as chap. 6.2 (Solon turning the Seisachtheia to the profit of him.self and his friends) and chap. 27.4 (Pericles' motive for the introduction of the dicasts' pay). The authorship of this pamphlet is uncertain, as is also its relationship to another source of importance, viz., that from which are derived the accounts of the Four Hundred and the Thirty. The chief characteristics of that part of the "Constitu tion" are the prominence given to the term "traditional consti tution" 0r-64-pun roXtreia) and the favourable view taken of the character and aims of Theramenes. It has been maintained, on the one hand, that this last source (the authority followed in the accounts of the Four Hundred and the Thirty) is identical with the oligarchical pamphlet, and, on the other, that it is none other than the Atthis of Androtion. The former hypothesis is possible. The latter is impossible. We know from the fragments that have descended to us that the Atthides uniformly adopted a democratic tone. We also know that Androtion belonged to the radical wing of the democratic party at Athens. The probability is that Aris totle followed not one but several oligarchical works composed about the end of the 5th or at the beginning of the 4th century B.C. and that he was indebted to one or other of these, not merely in his account of the Four Hundred and the Thirty but also in the earlier constitutional history. (Cf. the prominence assigned to the Areopagus throughout the treatise.) Value.—It will be realized that the value of any particular statement will vary with the character of the source from which it comes. For the history of the 5th century the passages which come from Androtion's Atthis carry with them a high degree of authority, but in passages which are derived from other sources than the Atthis a much lower degree of authority can be claimed, even for statements relating to the 5th century. The constitution of Dracon in chap. 4 is certainly an interpolation; the 17 years' ascendancy of the Areopagus after the Persian Wars must be regarded as unhistorical, also the introduction of payment for the citizens by Aristeides and the association of Themistocles with Ephialtes in the overthrow of the Areopagus. It is remark able that there is not a word about the organization of the Em pire in the 5th century. The period between Cleisthenes and the Peloponnesian War is treated very inadequately. But even so it must be admitted that our debt to the narrative contained in the first part is great. Much new material has been supplied which throws light not only on the SoIonian reforms but also on the economic and political conditions of Athens in pre-Solonian days and on the period of confusion which immediately followed the re forms. To estimate what the discovery of the treatise has meant to our knowledge of Cleisthenes, it is only necessary to compare the histories of Greece written before 1891 with those published after that date. Many questions which had given rise to con troversy in the past are now settled; the Areopagus was in exist ence long before Solon; Solon, however, not Cleisthenes was the founder of the Heliaea; the Archons were not appointed by lot until 487 B.C., and Ephialtes, not Pericles, was the democratic leader when the Areopagus was deprived of its powers. Further, from the treatise we realize the great part played by the moderate men in the revolutions of the Four Hundred and the Thirty. Again, there can be no question as to the importance, or the trustworthy character of the Second Part. True, there are some omissions even here, e.g., the Ecclesia is touched on only inciden tally, but it remains as our chief authority for the institutions of the 4th century. We need, however, to be continually on our guard against arguing from the practice of the 4th century to that of the 5th, unless corroborative evidence is available.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--A conspectus of the literature of the Constitution Bibliography.--A conspectus of the literature of the Constitution down to 1912 is given in Sandys' "Aristotle's Constitution of Athens" (Macmillan, 1912) , which is the most complete edition of the treatise published in any language. Other editions: Editio princeps, ed. by F. G. Kenyon, Jan. 1891, with commentary; 3rd and revised ed. Jan., 1892. Aristotelis IIoXtrela 'AOripatcop ed. G. Kaibel and U. von Wilamowitz-Mollendorf (1891; 3rd ed. 1898). Aristotelis qui fertur 'A9nvaiwv iroXcrela recensuerunt II. van Herwerden et J. van Leeuwen (Leyden, 1891) .

A school edition, with notes in German, by Karl Hude (Teubner: 2nd ed., 1916) . The best translations are those of Kenyon, in English, and of Kaibel and Kiessling, in German.

Works dealing with the subject: Bruno Keil, Die Solonische Ver fassung nach Aristoteles (1892) , and most important of all U. von Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, Aristoteles and Athen (1893; also in antistatic reprint) . See also Vol. 2 of G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, new edition by Swoboda (Munich, 1926) . (E. D. T. J.)