Rhetoric and the Rise of Democracy

View of the Acropolis from the Pnyx, Site of the Ekklesia, Seat of Athenian Democracy (link).

It's a commonplace of rhetorical history to say rhetoric was made possible by the invention of democracy (demos (people), kratos (rule)). As with any assertion, the truth depends on the definitions. If rhetoric is defined as the speech given by the monarch or the religious leader from which we faithful take guidance and solace, then rhetoric has nothing to do with democracy. If, on the other hand, rhetoric is defined as public debate about civically significant actions and events presented and adjudicated by enfranchised citizens, then democratic institutions and laws are a necessary requirement for rhetorical development.

The traditional story, the origin myth of rhetoric, is handed down to us from Cicero who said (in Brutus) he got it from Aristotle in a book called Synagoga which we don't have. As the story goes, when the tyrant Thrasybulus From Wiki: "Thrasybulus (Greek: Θρασύβουλος) was a tyrant who ruled Syracuse for eleven months[1] during 466 and 465 BC. He was a member of the Deinomenid family and the brother of the previous tyrant Hiero, who seized power in Syracuse by convincing Gelon's son to give up his claim to the leadership of Syracuse. A few months later, members of the Deinomenid family overthrew him. However, the Deinomenid family was subsequently overthrown and a democracy was established in Syracuse." was over-thrown at Syracuse on the island of Sicily (465 BCE), there were courts set up to hear disputes regarding the redistribution of land. Because at the time there was no formal training in public speaking and now a great need for the ability to speak in public, the opportunity for instruction presented itself and a man named Corax (Gk for crow, incidentally) is said to have seized the opportunity, teaching people how to make arguments based on a common sense or recieved wisdom, what is convincing because it is consistent with what people are inclined to think. If the family currently living next to the plane tree by the fork in the river has three generations of tomb stones out back, anyone else's claim on that land should be rejected. Corax is said to have taught his student Tisias how to teach as well, and together they are identified with the beginnings of rhetoric. There is also a story that once Tisius had learned everything Corax had to offer, he sued his teacher for false advertising, claiming that Corax had said, "Study with me and you will win your first case or else I will give you your money back." Thus Tisias figured by suing Corax he could not lose. If he won at court he got his money back. If he lost, Corax would have to refund his tuition. The jury is said to have dismissed the case derisively, "From a bad crow, a rotten egg." There is no way to know if the story is true, but it's amusing to think that it might be the first instance of a publicity stunt. Maybe Corax and Tisias brought the case to trial to generate buzz for their collective enterprise. The more traditional conclusion, of course, is that the story underscores rhetoric's ill-repute. At any rate, the rise of rhetoric is thus identified with the over-throw of a tyrant and the creation of democratic institutions. For a more scholarly rendidtion of this.

The Greeks developed three laws over the course of roughly 150 years that made open debate with a binding resolution, democracy, much more likely to succeed as a form of political organization. Specifically isonomia and isegoria and parrhesia -- equality before the law, the right to address citizens in the ekklesia and the courts, and freedom of speech. Essentially, while economics and charisma have always created factions, technically every citizen male had a voice in Athens when it came to political deliberation and legal disputes. Not every citizen had the courage to address several thousand people, and even fewer had the lungs for the job. And of course money has always talked louder than men.

At the apex of Athens' experiment with radical democracy, one man, one vote, the juries were open to all citizen males who could afford to skip a day's labor (Pericles, 495 - 429, introduced the practice of paying two obols a day and Cleon (d. 422) raised it to 3 some time around 425 bce -- 6 obols to the drachma, 1 drachma was perhaps the wage for a day's labor). The legislative assemblymen were selected by lot. Perhaps more significantly, anyone could prosecute anyone else. There was no police force, no Attorney General, no District Attorney. There were no lawyers either. Each man had to be his own advocate, if it came to that, or at very least he would have to read a speech he had purchased from a logographer, someone who made a living writing speeches for others, considered a lowly craft. Having to buy and read one was no doubt considered pretty low as well. In a world where the government and the judiciary consisted of every male citizen and their work was accomplished by deciding among competing speeches, rhetorical power was real, direct power.

The direct democracy that we associate with the "Golden Age of Athens" and the rise of rhetorical instruction took around 150 years to happen and it only lasted for around 200 years. Its rise and fall is an oft told tale worth repeating.

The first steps towards democratization were taken by Solon (c. 638 - 558), whose revamped legislation was the first ever to be recorded in writing. Solon was a eupatria, the scion a long-established Athenian family, but his father impoverished his children by giving away too much money (History says) and so the young man set to sea to make his fortune. Having found it, he returned to Athens with a sympathetic view of the poor and so when his turn at power came he forgave all debts. He did not, however, redistribute the large tracts of land that the aristocrats owned and his legal intention was leaked in advance, with the consequence that many of the crafty aristocrats borrowed as much money as they could get and bought up more land. (Everitt, The Rise of Athens). The poor debtors and trades people nevertheless greatly benefited because previously debt threatened slavery. Now, past debts were forgiven and future debts carried no threat to liberty. The rich were of course outraged, especially those who were now even richer.

One other Solonian ammendment is relevant here. Before he became Archon, prosecution of wrong doing was the responsability of the wronged. If you were weak, poor, afraid of public speaking or compromized in some way by the way you lived, you were unlikely to seek justice and thus were at the mercy of those with greater means. Solon made it possible for anyone to prosecute anyone and thus a man might make many friends by defending the poor or even the rich but ineloquent. This constitutional amendment made it possible to become a professional rhetor, to speak in public for a fee or advocate on behalf of others for money and power. It also made it possible for an unscrupulous but eloquent man to blackmail others with the threat of prosecution and to use prosection as a means to power over a rival. The Greek word sycophant meant informer, but came to refer to people who used the threat of legal process as a tool for leverage over others.

When Solon's year as Archon (or top man) was up, he left Athens voluntarily and traveled the world. Perhaps he didn't care to watch what happened next.

Over the next hundred years, power in Athens vacillated between aristocracy and tyranny, the latter referring to one man rule, autocracy, not necessarily evil rule. When one of the wealthy ambitious saw that the demos or regular people were chaffing under the rules imposed by the rich in their own favor, he might attempt a coup d'etat, using the poor as a weapon against the rich. Several succeeded at this. Pisistratus (reigned 561 -- 527 BCE) established a tyranny that he was able to bequeath to his two sons. He was a populist who redistributed the land of the aristocracy. While he seems to have ruled successfully, his sons were less adept or perhaps Athens had again tired of tyranny. Everitt observes that:

In the centuries that followed the fall of the tyranny, the contribution that Pisistratus made to the development of Athens was undervalued. Tyrants fell out of fashion and it was in nobody's interest to give him any credit. In fact, he governed well and greatly enhanced the image of Athens in the wider world. During his long reign he provided stability and calmed social discord.

Cleisthenes, whose sobriquet became "the father of democracy" was a wealthy Athenian of the Alcmaeonid genos (clan or family) who re-wrote the Athenian constitution in 508 BCE after returning from exile. After Hippias, son of Pisistratus, was deposed, Cleisthenes struggled with another leader named Isagoras for control of Athens. Isagoras won with the help of the King of Sparta but his subsequent attempts to undermine the democratic institutions then in place ultimately led to his exile and Cleisthenes' return.

Cleisthenes replaced the traditional 4 tribes of Athens based on family relations with 10 divisions, called demos, each composed of men from 3 differnt parts of Attica, from the coast, from the interior, and from Athens itself. As Everitt explains: "This meant that members of the same tribe came from differnt parts of the country. Old local and territorial loyalties were disolved."

Cleisthenes replaced the convention of patronyms, being named for the father, with being named for one's demos. He increased the number of participants in the Boule or council from 400 to 500, 50 from each demos, and he instituted sortition or election by lot. A term in office lasted only one year and no one could be selected twice in 10 years. He also reorganized the courts. A jury might consist of anywhere between 201 - 5001 citizens based on the nature of the cases, selected each day at random from the men who showed up that day, up to 500 from each demos. Any given case lasted no longer than one day, a vote being called as the sun set.

This new political arrangement placed more power in more hands and was met with euphoria and horror. The ruling elite, who saw themselves as justifiably community leaders, clearly better than everyone else, literally the agatha, the "good" people, were outraged. These sweaty tradesmen and poor dirt farmers didn't know how to run a household properly, let alone a city. The "lesser" citizens of Athens didn't think much of the Aristocrats either. There was also plenty of intrigue and rivalry among the Aristocrats themselves.

Cleisthenes may also have introduced the practice of ostracism, a vote during which any citizen could propose the exile of any other citizen, as a way of keeping an ascendent citizen from forging a crown. If more than 6000 votes were cast against a man, he had to leave Athens for 10 years. He retained his property and his citizenship, but if he returned before his 10 years were up, he would be executed. The Cleisthenian changes were called isonomia, equality before the law.

Cleisthenes had a young lover named Aristides The Just who rose to fame and power by being the chief strategist of Athens' victory over Persia. He was opposed by Themistocles who thought that future threats to Athens would come by sea rather than by land and so wanted Athens to build a world-beating navy. To get rid of Aristides, Themistocles called for an ostracism. And Aristides lost. Among the standard rhetorical exercises (the progymnasmata) of Hellenistic Greece was something called a chreia (an anecdote). You selected a famous historical or mythological figure, set a scene, and then put eloquent words into his or her (sometimes) mouth. The goal was to highlight an important element of character by means of a maxim or exemplary act. Here: When Themistocles called an ostracism, Aristides "The Just" arrived in the morning like all other citizens, ostracon in hand. An illiterate farmer came up to him and said, "Brother, write Aristides on this potsherd for me". Taken aback, the statesman and triumphant general asked, "What did Aristides ever do to you?" "Nothing," said the farmer. "I've never met the man. I'm just tired of hearing him called 'The Just'." Aristides took the potsherd, scratched his name on it, and handed it back without comment.

While many of the political improvements made on behalf of the poor and "lesser" Athenians were made by wealthy Athenians with a class conscience, some were also precipitated by changes in warfare and commerce. Athens was set on land less fertile than its people and so its population regularly outgrew its food supply. Periodically it would send some people off to colonize available land around the Mediterranean. Sometimes they would supplement their needs by waging war on other cities. The Greeks were a competitive people, if the Games are any indication, and valor and victory in battle were instilled by hearing The Iliad from infancy on. In the summer, after the crops were planted, the men would go off to raid and battle their neighbors. When harvest time came, those sill alive all went home, often bringing captives back as slaves. Sometime between 800 and 700 BCE the strategic formation of the Phalanx was developed and the institution of the Hoplite warrior was born. Any tradesman or small land owner who could afford his own armor, shield, dagger, and long spear could join in the summer raids in grander style, thus elevating them among the poorer men who had only a sword or a spear or an axe. The Phalanx was a tightly packed formation of Hoplites several rows deep. This arrangement proved extremely effective and the cities that used it won many battles. Athens was one such city and as a result, these "lesser" men gained prestige and power as their efforts on the battle field brought tribute and booty and servants and slaves from conquered neighbors.

The class of men below the small land owners and tradesmen, the Thetes, who didn't have enough money for armor gained political advantage when the Archon Themistocles (c. 524 - 459 BCE) realized that a sea battle with Persia was inevitable and he convinced his fellow Athenians to pay for and build a huge fleet of warships. A trireme was a three decked oared warship with a hardened prow used for ramming the enemy's ships. Each ship had 170 oarsmen. Being an oarsman was a dreadful job, squalid, hot, and frightening, since all you could do was row in unison, blind for the most part to what was happening outside the ship and pray Athena would prevail. Because it was such a lowly job, only the lowly would accept it, but because the navy became huge and hugely important, the Thetes gained a share of power.

The important thing to realize via this zigzag dash through Athenian history is that radical democracy, one man one vote, did not evolve. Nor did it just arrive. There was a constant struggle for supremacy among the wealthier clans, the poor figuring in only when some Aristocrat thought to make good use of them or they themselves had enough armor and weapons to suggest a potential force for change. There were a few class "traitors" and years of real democracy, followed by repression and violence and even occupation by invited foreign forces, followed again by liberation and freedom and then chaos and decent. We Americans would do well to learn this history carefully.

The "Athens" of academic folklore, the Golden Age of Philosophy and the Birth of Democracy, is a rhetorical exercise practiced by subsequent generations in different places at different times and for different reasons, often to justify later imperialism. Nevertheless, the Athenians provided a blueprint for democracy which has been endlessly admired but as yet never truly replicated. Even we past champions of democratization have only a representative democracy and plenty of talk of elites and regular people, fear inspired by various ideological mobs, and even some talk of autocracy, some for and some against.

Next » « Previous