The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Athenian Areopagus: from Salaminsky fight before Efialt's reform (478-462 BC)

UDK 94 13)





V.R. Gushchin

After Salaminsky fight the long period of domination of the Areopagus in Athens which is coming to the end with Efialt's reform 462 BC begins. Apparently, Areopag whose authority increased during grekopersidsky wars throughout the considered period remained very influential body. However in trials of 70-60 of the 5th century BC considerably the big role was played by people's assembly (or gelieya) though it is possible to assume active participation in them and Areopaguses - comrade. To speak and still about domination of the Areopagus would be exaggeration. Perhaps, the conclusion about its domination is drawn on the ground that these years the representative of the aristocracy — Kimon becomes the most influential politician.

After Salaminsky fight in Athens there is a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, it is possible to speak about democratization progress (implementation of the sea Femistokla program, creation in 478. The sea union) 1.& But at the same time, according to Aristotle, there is strengthening of such aristocratic body as Areopag which period of domination proceeds up to Efialt's reform. In "Policy" Aristotle notes that "the Areopagus, having become famous during the Persian wars, apparently, gave to the political system more severe looking." (Arist. Pol. V. 4. 1304 a20-21, S. And. Zhebeleva Lane). However, further he speaks about "ship common people" and hegemony of Athens at the sea that, according to him, promoted strengthening of democracy (Arist. Pol. V. 4. 1304 a21-25). In "The Athenian polity" we read that "within at least 17 years after median wars the state remained on domination of council of an Areopagus" (Arist. Ath. Pol. 25.1, hereinafter S. I. Radtsiga Lane).

What promoted strengthening of the Areopagus? Aristotle gives the answer and to this question. "After median wars the council of the Areopagus amplified again and began to govern the state, having undertaken the leadership in affairs not by some resolution, but because were obliged to it by success of sea fight at Salamin. Strategists absolutely became puzzled, without knowing what to do, and announced through heralds that everyone escaped as can; meanwhile Areopag, having got money, distributed on eight drachmas on the person and put all on the ships. For this reason also began to submit to his authority then..." (Arist. Ath. Pol. 23.1-2, cf.: Plut. Them. 10).

In a historiography of the message of Aristotle received ambiguous assessment. Some researchers accept Aristotle's information on domination of Areopaga2. Others with mistrust treat Aristotle's words, including their of the latest reconstruktsiyey3. According to P. Rhodes, this reconstruction was called

1 The thesis about communication between the Athenian imperialism and democracy became a platitude of a modern historiography. See, for example: Rhodes P.J. Democracy and empire//The Cambridge Companion of the Age of Pericles. Cambridge, 2007, Kudryavtseva T.V. Gelieya in the context of the Athenian majestic relations / / Mnemon. 2007. Issue 6. Page 23.
2 Cloche P. Democratie Athenienne. Paris, 1951. River 103; Wallace R.W. The Areopagos Council, to 307 B.C. Baltimore London, 1989. River 77-82, Ostwald M. The Areopagus in the Athenaion Politeia//Aristote et Athenes. Paris. 1993, Ryan F.X. Die areopagitische Herrschaft und die Areopagiten//RIDA. T. 46. 1999. Bibliography and historiographic review of cm: I.E. Surikov. The Athenian Areopagus in the first half of the 5th century BC//VDI. 1995. No. 1. Page 35).
3 Cawkwell G. NOMOPHYLAKIA and the Areopagus//JHS. 1988. Vol. 108. River 1 and settlement

to prove need carried out by Efialt reform4. Special mistrust at researchers is aroused by the story by Aristotle about events in Athens on the eve of Salamin-sky fight. Its message disperses from the text of Herodotus who says only that to Athenians through the herald was announced that everyone saved the family (Herod. VIII. 41) 5. At the same time nothing is told them about monetary distributions. P. Rhodes, however, is ready to assume that events are described by Aristotle truly as money in treasury could be, and to leave them to the opponent would be nerazumno6. He tends to consider the initiator of distributions of Femistokl, former besides areopagity. In this case protrusion of a role of the Areopagus could reflect the point of view of political opponents of Femistokla7.

So, researchers differently treat Aristotle's messages. Also we will try to understand this problem. For a start it is necessary to determine the volume of powers and function of the Areopagus that will allow us to find out extent of its influence in the considered time.

Emergence of the Areopagus, certainly, should be referred to an extreme antiquity. Cases of murders which from an extreme antiquity were considered on the hill Aresa8 were under authority of the Areopagus. In its maintaining there were most important judicial and political cases (Arist. Ath. Pol. 2.6). In the Areopagus an inspection of the officials applying for the highest state positions (dokimasia) was carried out and their reports (euthynaí)9 obeyed.

Areopag protected laws and exercised supervision of their execution (nomophy-lakia)10. According to Plutarch Solon charged to areopagita to supervise behind laws (Plut. Sol. 19), and Aristotle in "The Athenian polity" lets know that supervision of laws — the most ancient duty of an Areopagus, as Solon confirmed (Arist. Ath. Pol. 8.4). Certainly, nomophylakia is too indistinct concept precisely to establish its contents. Some consider nomophylakia the specific function of the Areopagus consisting in the prosecution and punishment which committed certain crimes, others — the sum of the rights allowing to try to obtain execution zakonov11. It is possible that supervision of performance of laws also was what Plutarch calls supervision of everything in the state (episkopospanton) (Plut. Sol. 19).

Areopagita judged for attempt of overthrow of the existing system and tyranny establishment (Arist. Ath. Pol. 16:10). According to "The Athenian polity", Areopag "judged those who made a plot for overthrow of democracy, owing to the fact that Solon issued the law on introduction concerning their extraordinary statement" (Arist. Ath. Pol. 8.4) 12. Since Solon's time, in Areopag Rhodes P.J had to act this way nazy4 . The Athenian Revolution//CAH. Vol. V. Cambridge, 1992. River 65, idem. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford, 1993. River 287.

5 Walker E.M. Athens. The Reforms of Cleisthenes//CAH. V. 1927, P. 472-474, the analysis see: Ostwald M. The Areopagus. P. 142.
6 Rhodes P.J. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. P. 288.
7 Rhodes P.J. The Athenian Revolution. River 64-65.
8 Tsukanova of M.A. Areopag to Solon//the Messenger I LIE. It is gray. history, language, literature. Issue 2. No. 8. 1972; Korshunkov WA. Efialt and value of reforms of the Areopagus / / Antique society and state. L., 1988. Page 68; I.E. Surikov. The Athenian Areopagus in the first half of the 5th century BC//VDI. 1995. No. 1. Page 29, 37-38.
9 Rhodes P.J. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. P. 316-318.
10 V.A. Korshunkov. Religious, judicial and political powers of the Athenian Areopagus//Antiquity and earlier Middle Ages. Socio-political and ethnocultural processes. N. Novgorod, 1991. Page 37 and settlement
11 The review of the points of view see: Rhodes P.J. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. River 315. According to Ch. Hignet, in nomophylakia it is possible to find three components: the right of citizens to address in Areopag with complaints to officials, the right of areopagit to punish violators of laws and the right of trial of those who tried to subvert the existing system (Hignett C. A History of the Athenian Constitution. P. 209), M. Ostvald connects nomophylakia with carrying out euthynai and business management about plots on overthrow of democracy (Ostwald M. The Areopagus. River 146).
12 As indirect confirmation to that serves the comical story about Femistokl and Efialt's conspiracy at the time of overthrow of the power of the Areopagus (Arist. Ath. Pol. 25.3). R. Sealy, however, considers it fiction (Sealey R. Ephialtes, eisangelia, and the Council//Athenian Democracy. P. 315). With mistrust to

vayemy isangeliya (eisangeliai) are extraordinary statements (Arist. Ath. Pol. 4. 4) 13. By researchers it is suggested that isangeliya were considered not only in the Areopagus. I.E. Surikov believes that they began to be considered in people's assembly (or a geliea) long before reform of Efialta14. T.V. Kudryavtseva also suggests that some of the lawsuits initiated through isangeliya were considered by people's assembly or gelieey15. Below we will address the analysis of legal details of some of these processes for now we continue a conversation about functions of the Areopagus.

it is frequent, speaking about Efialt's reform, note that the last deprived of Areopag not primordial (ta patria), and the rights (ta epitheta)16 which are in addition acquired by it. It has to indicate what after Salamin Areopag got certain new polnomo-chiya17. According to a number of researchers, ta epitheta mention opens the propaganda courses of reformers rather. Reacting to the sounding criticism, reformers sought to prove that they did not encroach on birth rights ancient organa18.

However the facts which we have allow to speak about the birth rights which are taken away from the Areopagus of Efialtom19. Aristotle in one of passages of "The Athenian polity" telling about tyranny of Thirty notes that cancellation of laws of Efialt and Arkhestrat restored "a fatherlike system" — patrios politeia (Arist. Ath. Pol. 35.2). And Plutarch in Kimon's biography considers that that, opposing reforms, sought for restoration of the system established by Klisfen (Plut. Cim. 15). If this is so, then the speech goes not about return of certain excessive functions here, and about restoration of that role which the Areopagus played till 462 BC

Returning to the question of the possible reasons of strengthening of a role of the Areopagus, we will notice that it was hardly caused by expansion of its prerogatives. The speech can go or about use of those powers which it already had, or about growth of moral authority of this ancient body, and is equal also separate areopagitov20.

The moral authority Areopag could find during the Greek-Persian wars and, in particular, during Salaminsky fight. However, Efialt will be roused to reform not so much by the moral authority Areopaga how many its political value. It is unlikely the reformer could deprive of deserved glory both body, and his certain members. As for separate areopagit, perhaps, Femistokl and Aristide were the most authoritative of them. Perhaps, by the authority Areopag it was obliged also to them. But their primary activity nevertheless proceeded in other sphere. Aristide in the 80th gains fame as national sudya21. Aristotle also demonstrates to it.

to Aristotle's message also M. Hansen belongs. He believes that the formula "overthrow of democracy" (katalysis tou demou) is not characteristic of language of Solonovsky poems (Hansen M. Eisangelia. The Sovereignty of the People Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Empeachment of Generals and Politicians//Odense University Classical Studies. Vol. 5. 1975. River 16).

13 Rhodes P.J. Eisangelia in Athens//JHS. 1979. Vol. 99. P. 103. However, R. Sealy considers that Solon adopted not the law, and only gave an opportunity to file extraordinary petitions (Sealey R. Ephialtes, eisangelia, and the Council. P. 315-316). About isangeliya see also: T.V. Kudryavtseva. National court in democratic Athens. SPb., 2008. Chapter 5.
14 I.E. Surikov. Athenian Areopagus. Page 32. He believes that consideration of isangeliya was transferred to people's assembly at a boundary of the VI—V centuries BC
15 The summary table see: T.V. Kudryavtseva. National court. Page 65.
16 I.E. Surikov. Athenian Areopagus. Page 32.
17 Their hypothetical list see: V.M. Strogetsky. Greek historical thought of the classical and Hellenistic period of stages of development of the Athenian democracy. Gorky, 1987. Page 43-47.
18 A.I. Dovatur. Policy and Aristotle's polities. M; L., 1965. Page 193-194. Cawkwell G. NOMO-PHYLAKIA. P. 2. See also: Rhodes P.J. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. River 314.
19 J. Koukwell considers that reformers took away birth rights (Cawkwell G. NOMOPHYLAKIA. P. 2).
20 About growth of the moral authority Areopaga see: V.P. Buzeskul. History of the Athenian democracy. SPb., 2003. Page 121, Ostwald M. The Areopagus. P. 146, I.E. Surikov. Athenian Areopagus. Page 35.
21 Gushchin V.R. Aristide and Athenian courts / / Political history and historiography. From antiquity to the present. Petrozavodsk, 2007.

"People prostates during this time (after Salamin — V.G.) — he notes — there were Aristide, Lisimakh's son, and Femistokl, the son Neokla. The last was considered as skillful in military affairs, the first — in civil; besides Aristide, in the general opinion, differed between the contemporaries in justice. Therefore addressed one as to the commander, to another — as to the adviser" (Arist. Ath. Pol. 23. 3). Aristotle calls them people prostates that directly testifies to their democratic oriyentatsii22. In any case, it is unlikely Aristide and Femistokl sought to make Areopag the most influential public authority.

It is possible to assume that growth of influence of the Areopagus and areopagit was promoted more by Kimon and his environment. The middle 70 — the middle 6o-x is quite often called Kimon's era. The irony of history in this case is that he could not be areopagity as we do not know of its election arkhontom23. However as the representative nearly of the most notable Athenian family he could be closely connected with Areopagom24. Even solemn transferring to Athens of "Tezey's bones" and the beginning of honoring of the legendary tsar can be considered as the act strengthening influence of ancient council as the antique tradition of Tezey calls the creator of Areopaga25.

But domination of the Areopagus about which Aristotle wrote could not be based only on moral authority of separate areopagit. Political activity of areopagit had to be an incentive for Efialt's reform. Perhaps, traces it can be found in Femi-stokl's prosecution which began in the 70th of the 5th century which will come to the end with his exile from Athens under the law on ostracism (Arist. Ath. Pol. 25. 3-4, Diod. XI. 54. Z-5). Mistrust is aroused by the message about the first process which comes to an end with justification of Femistokla26. Spartans became his initiator (Diod. XI. 54. 2-5). If this process was, then it is possible to assume that the isangeliya — the extraordinary application which up to Efialt's reform was considered by the Areopagus took place. However the people's assembly or gelieya took part in consideration of this business.

Perhaps, the story by Plutarch about Aristide who showed then generosity in relation to the old rival belongs to this process (Plut. Arist. 25, S. Markish Lane). Kimon's mention allows to assume that the speech goes here not about the Areopagus which member it as we spoke above, could and not byt27.

Despite justification, Femistokl will be soon expelled under the law on ostracism. And took active part in its exile demos28. Perhaps, izgna22 About people prostates see: V.R. Gushchin. "The Athenian polity" about "national leaders" in the 6th century BC//Messenger of St.Petersburg State University. 1992. It is gray.2, the issue 2, V.R. Gushchin. Prostates and demagogues in Aristotle's "Policy" / / Political history and a historiography. From antiquity to the present. Petrozavodsk, 1994; Gouschin V. Pisis-tratus& Leadership in A.P.13.4 and the Establishment of the Tyranny of 561/60 B.C.//CQ. Vol.49. 1999. N.1.

23 We thank for consultation in this question of P. Rhodes (Durham, Great Britain).

> Could be 24 Areopagitami Alkmeonida which will become Kimon's allies in his fight against Femistokl.

25 Gouschin V. Athenian Synoikism of the Fifth century B.C., or two stories of Theseus//Greece Rome. 1999. Vol. 46. N. 2. P. 174, note 46; Gushchin V.R. Kimon and "Tezey's bones"//Political history and historiography. Petrozavodsk. 2000.
26 With mistrust V.M. Strogetsky treats this message, in particular, (Strogetsky V.M. Diodor Sitsiliysky about processes against Femistokl and Pavsaniya (XI. 39-47, 54-59): The translation and the historico-critical comment//From the history of antique society. Gorky, 1979. Page 26-27). See also: T.V. Kudryavtseva. National court. Page 61-62.
27 M. Ostvald also speaks about people's assembly: Ostwald M. The Areopagus. River 147-148, 151.
28 Today 2264 ostrak with a name of Femistokl are known. However, the question of its exile, at least, was twice brought up for vote. The first time — in the late eighties, in the middle of his rivalry with Aristide. Therefore to establish what quantity of an ostrak belongs to this it is sharp-koforii, difficult. And still the provided figure (even if it is conditional to divide it in half) rather impressive and can demonstrate active participation of people in Femistokl's exile (Rhodes P.J. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. P. 279, see also: Gouschin V. Athenian Ostracism and Ostraka: some historical and statistical considerations//Greek History and Epigraphy. Swansea, 2009. River 235, note 72).

ny Femistokla will mean the essential shift of balance of advantage of the nobility — Kimon and his supporters among whom it seems there were many areopagit. Perhaps, for this reason future reformer Efialt will begin the activity with the organization of trials against areopagit (Arist. Ath. Pol. 25. 1-2).

Then the second will follow — the correspondence process against Femistokla29. New charges from outside lakedemonyan and also anti-Spartan activity of Femistokl in Argose30 become motives for initiation of process. "Femistokl expelled from the fatherland lived in Argos. The case with Pavsany gave a reason to his enemies to a performance against it. Leobot, the son Alkmeona from Aglavra was his accuser in treason; took part in charge as well Spartans" (Plut. Them. 23, cf.: Diod. XI. 54.4) 31. And in this case it is possible to tell about initiation of process on an isangeliya though case in national sobranii32 was considered.

In 463 the political opponents tried to bring Kimon to court, but that was acquitted too (Plut. Cim. 14, 15, cf.: Arist. Ath.Pol. 27.1). Legal details of the begun process are not clear. Most likely, Kimon as Aristotle reports, was made responsible during delivery of the official report (euthyna) by him (Arist. Ath.Pol. 27.1) 33. But trial against Kimon was initiated by people's assembly or geliey (Plut. Cim.14, Per.10) 34. Then Pericles who appeared not the most strict of judges was appointed the public prosecutor (see: Plut. Cim. 14, Plut. 10).

Some researchers believe that the verdict of not guilty in the matter of Kimon was pronounced thanks to intervention of Areopaga35. It is considered even that intervention of the Areopagus in this business will become a reason for carrying out by Efialt democratic reform36. However told by Plutarch demonstrates that national judges were not inclined to go to the extremities. And if so, then the verdict of not guilty confirmed with the Areopagus also in this case was taken out also by people's assembly (or geliey) 37. In other words, oppositions of people's assembly and the Areopagus in this case could not be.


It is obvious that in the trials mentioned by us considerably the big role was played not by Areopag, and people's assembly or gelieya38. Already at this time the most important decisions including judicial, could not be taken out without consideration of people - "without most of the people (aneu demou plethuon)" 39. In other words, sudeb29 About legal side of business see: T.V. Kudryavtseva. National court. Page 59 and settlement

30 Forrest W.G. Themistocles and Argos. River 237 and settlement
31 And in this case among Femistokl's enemies we see Alkmeonidov. An active participant of the first process was — Alkmeon, and the second — his son Leobot that Alkmeonidov allows to consider Kimon's supporters.
32 A mention of this process we find a psefizm (decisions of people's assembly) of the Crater (FgrHist 342 F11) in a meeting (see also: T.V. Kudryavtseva. National court in democratic Athens. Page 59).
33 Carawan E. Eisangelia and euthyna. The trials of Miltiades, Themistocles, and Cimon//GRBS. 1987. Vol. 28. N. 2. P. 203.
34 Carawan E. Eisangelia and euthyna. P. 202-205. M. Hansen believes that it was process on an isangeliya, the decree of people's assembly postponed in gelieyu (Hansen M. Eisangelia. P. 46, 71. Cm. also: T.V. Kudryavtseva. National court. Page 63-64).
35 Rhodes P.J. Eisangelia in Athens. River 105; Rhodes P.J. A Commentary. River 287, 312, Carawan E. Eisangelia and euthyna. P. 203, note 54. Participation in this case of areopagit, according to R. Bauman, is confirmed by the fact that Kimon will be an active opponent of reform of Efialt who deprived an Areopagus of many powers subsequently (Bauman R. Political Trials in Ancient Greece. London New York, 1990. River 29)
36 Carawan E. Eisangelia and euthyna. P. 205, Rhodes P.J. A Commentary. River 312.
37 Obviously, Kimon enjoyed favor of the people, as was reflected in the verdict of not guilty pronounced by national judges (see about it: Ostwald M. La Democratie athenienne. River 18).
38 For more details see: Ostwald M. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law. Berkeley, 1986. River 30.
39 It is about the analysis of the provisions recorded in inscription IG I3 105. M. Ostvald connects this establishment with Klisfen's reforms and an isonomiya, F. Ryan - with Solon's reforms (Ostwald M. La Democratie athenienne. P. 14 and settlement; Ryan F.X. The original date of the demos plethuon provisions of IG

I3 105 / / JHS. Vol. 114. 1994).

the ny hearings initiated on isangeliya i.e. An Areopagus, took place in a geliea or people's assembly.

Whereas to be with domination of the Areopagus? Than areopagita drew upon themselves anger of the reformer Efialt? F. Ryan assumed that archons as future areopagita presided over meetings of people's assembly, promoting thereby growth of influence of Areopaga40. But in what it could consist if areopagita only approved the decisions accepted by people's assembly or geliey?

And still the solution should be looked for in the sphere of legal proceedings and, perhaps, in process against Kimon. Though the last was acquitted geliey or people's assembly, areopagita will draw upon themselves anger of representatives of a democratic wing of the Athenian policy. We need only to assume that areopagita directly were involved in consideration of the case of Kimon. It is hypothetically possible to assume that areopagita participated (and, perhaps, and presided) on the processes initiated on isangeliya. Perhaps, it influenced also the final decisions. If this is so, then Efialt's aspiration to reform Areopag, is not surprising. However, to speak about domination of the Areopagus would be exaggeration. The period of domination of the Areopagus coincides with so-called "Kimon's era" — the 70-60th of the 5th century BC representing the aristocratic direction in the Athenian policy.



Perm& State



Areopagus domination, as Aristotle wrote (Arist. Ath. Pol. 23.1-2, Pol. V. 4. 1304 a20-21), began after the battle of Salamis. This time Areopagus was very influential institution, whose authority grew during the Persian Wars. However people&s assembly (or heliaia) played more active role in the trials of 70-60 of the V Century B.C. We can assume the areopagites took part in it as well. Nevertheless one may doubt Areopagus& domination. It was conspicuous coincidence, as we suspect, with so-called Cimonian Era.


40 Ryan F.X. Die areopagitische Herrschaft. S. 48.
Steve Hansen
Other scientific works: