29

The Rule of the Thirty, the Athenian Amnesty, and Socrates’ Trial

CHAPTER CONTENTS

29.1 The Establishment of the Rule of the Thirty (404)

29.2 The Thirty Tyrants

29.3 The Fall of the Thirty (403)

29.4 Critias’ Grave Monument (?) WEB195

29.5 The Spartans’ Grave at Athens and the Athenian Amnesty (403)

29.6 The Reaction of the Spartans and Their Allies to the Thirty’s Appeal for Help Against the Exiles

29.7 Socrates’ Trial (399) 412

29.8 Socrates’ Trial and Image196

The Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War exposed the Athenian democracy to attacks from oligarchic members of the upper class as well as exiles who returned to the city. This chapter describes the oligarchic rule that these Athenians established with Spartan help. It discusses how the leading oligarchs, known as the Thirty, came to power, their oppressive rule, and their fall. Some of the Spartans who came to help the oligarchs against their democratic rivals died in battle, and the chapter produces literary and archaeological evidence of their burial in an Athenian cemetery. It also reports on the reconciliation agreement between the feuding Athenian parties and on the trial of Socrates, whose fate cannot be dissociated from the bitter memories of the Thirty’s rule and Athens’ defeat.

29.1 The Establishment of the Rule of the Thirty (404)

The Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War exposed Athenian democracy to attacks from oligarchic members of the upper class as well as exiles returning to the city. Most prominent among the latter was Critias, a pupil of Socrates, an admirer of Sparta, and an extreme oligarch. In early summer 404, a popular assembly was convened in which Lysander was present to show his support for the oligarchs. The speechwriter Lysias describes this assembly meeting in a prosecution speech, which he delivered in 403/2 against Eratosthenes. Lysias accused Eratosthenes, who belonged to the oligarchic rule of the Thirty, of responsibility for the death of Lysias’ brother. (For the Attic orators, see Introduction III.7.)

Lysias held the Athenian political leader Theramenes chiefly responsible for the institution of the Thirty in Athens. Other sources are much more favorable toward Theramenes. Lysias’ version also reflects the Athenians’ wish to distance themselves from this sad chapter in their history and their acquiescing to the oligarchs.

Lysias 12 Against Eratosthenes 72–74, 76

(72) This was how matters stood, and in the presence of Lysander, Philochares, and Miltiades (Lysander’s aides), they convened the assembly to discuss the constitution. At this no public speaker could oppose them or make threats against them, and you could not choose what was beneficial for the city but could merely vote for whatever they favored.

(73) Theramenes stood up and told you to turn the city over to thirty men, and put in service the constitution that Dracontides had publicized.¹ Despite being placed in such a position you nevertheless vociferously declared your opposition, since you well realized that on that day your debate was about slavery and freedom. (74) But, Gentlemen of the Jury, Theramenes declared – and to this I shall call you yourselves as witnesses – that he was not at all concerned about your uproar as he knew many Athenians who were working for the same ends as he was, and that what he was saying had the approval of Lysander and the Lacedaemonians. Following him, Lysander got up and made numerous points, in particular that he regarded you as truce-breakers, and that if you did not follow Theramenes’ prescripts it was not the constitution that would be at stake but your lives …

(76) They (the movers) had prior instructions to elect ten men whom Theramenes had specified, ten more who were the choice of the selected ephors,² and ten from the present gathering. They could see your weakness and knew their own power, to the extent that they were sure in advance of what the results of the debate in the assembly were going to be.

Notes

1. Dracontides moved to change the government to oligarchy.

2. Prior to the meeting, the pro-Spartan oligarchs elected five ephors.

Question

1. Why did the Athenians approve changing their government, according to Lysias?

29.2 The Thirty Tyrants

The Thirty appeared to have modeled themselves after the Spartan Council (gerousia, for which see 7.11). From Lysander’s and the Spartans’ point of view they constituted an extended decarchy, a “rule of ten,” which ruled other cities with Sparta’s blessing (28.12.A: “Lysander Changes the Governments of the Allies”). Waving the banner of restoring the “ancestral constitution,” the oligarchs abolished democratic legislation that empowered the popular courts and weakened the Areopagus. They also took measures against abusers of the legal system known as “sykophants.” Soon, however, the Thirty become greedier for power and money and behaved tyrannically. Helped by a Spartan garrison, which they had requested, they victimized citizens and rich aliens including Lysias’ family. See WEB 36.2.I (“Good Metics”) on Lysias’ complaint of the Thirty’s treatment of resident aliens.

Theramenes, who belonged to the Thirty but opposed their methods, demanded to increase the number of those in government. The Thirty later put him on trial and condemned him to death.

Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.17–18

(2.3.17) Large numbers were being put to death, and without justification, and it was evident that many men had formed groups and were wondering what would become of the constitution. At that point Theramenes made a further speech. It would be impossible for the oligarchy to survive unless they accepted a sufficient number of people to share power with them, he declared. (3.18) Critias and the other members of the Thirty were already particularly scared of Theramenes, fearing that the citizens might come flocking to his support, and this prompted them to bring together three thousand who were to share power with them …

29.3 The Fall of the Thirty (403)

The reign of terror continued, including expulsion from the city of those who did not belong to the body of 3,000 full citizens and confiscation of property. In the meantime the population of Athenian exiles grew, especially in Thebes and Argos, which gave them refuge in violation of a Spartan request to deny them support. The two cities did not care for narrow oligarchies, which could inspire imitators, and perhaps wished to display their independence from Sparta. A small number of Athenian exiles, led by the democratic leader Thrasybulus and others, seized and fortified Phyle on the border of Attica and Boeotia in 403. The Thirty’s attempt to dislodge them failed, and the exiles, now more than 700 in number, took over Munychia in the Piraeus. The Thirty, helped by men from the city and Spartan troops, failed to defeat them and Critias was killed in a battle. See WEB 29.4 for Critias’ alleged grave monument. The Thirty’s regime now came to an end.

Xenophon Hellenica 2.4.23–24

(2.4.23) The next day the Thirty assembled for deliberation in the council chamber, thoroughly miserable and isolated, and wherever members of the Three Thousand were stationed they fell to quarreling with one another. Those who had been guilty of particularly violent conduct, and were therefore now in fear, argued strongly against giving in to the men in Piraeus; those believing they had done no wrong, however, rationalized that they need not suffer these evils and tried to convince the others. They should not listen to the Thirty, they said, or permit them to destroy the city. Finally they voted to end the administration of the Thirty and elect other leaders. They actually chose ten men, one from each tribe.

(4.24) The Thirty then went off to Eleusis. The Ten, in conjunction with the cavalry commanders, took charge of those in the city, who were in a chaotic state and distrustful of one another …

Question

1. What difficulties did the Thirty encounter in maintaining their rule?

29.5 The Spartans’ Grave at Athens and the Athenian Amnesty (403)

The Ten, who replaced the Thirty, resembled other decarchies and were only slightly more moderate than the Thirty. Fearful of the democrats in Piraeus, they and the Thirty in Eleusis asked the Spartans for assistance. See WEB 29.6 for the reactions of the Spartans and their allies to the Thirty’s appeal for help against the exiles.

It was the Spartan king Pausanias who helped Athens to get rid of its tyrants, thereby resembling his ancestor Cleomenes I more than a century earlier (cf. 10.12: “The Expulsion of the Tyrants”). Xenophon (Hellenica 2.4.29) thinks that Pausanias was moved by jealousy of Lysander. The king took a Peloponnesian army and moved against Piraeus.

29.5.A The Battle between the Peloponnesians and Athenian Democrats

Xenophon Hellenica 2.4.33

As it happened, all the peltasts¹ and hoplites from the Piraeus were arming themselves in the theater. The light-armed troops accordingly made a sortie at once, and proceeded to hurl their javelins, throw stones, shoot arrows, and use their slings. Many of the Spartans were receiving wounds and, under pressure, they began to pull back, which prompted their opponents to attack with even greater determination. In that engagement Chaeron and Thibrachus, two polemarchs, lost their lives, along with the Olympic champion Lacrates and other Lacedaemonians who now lie buried before the gates in the Kerameikos.

Note

1. For peltasts (lighter-armed troops), see 31.10 (“Peltasts and the Battle of Lechaeum”).

29.5.B The Spartan Grave in Athens

The Spartans practiced group burial of warriors elsewhere. Here they were buried, probably in an Athenian gesture of reconciliation, in a prominent place in the Kerameikos, next to the road leading from the Dipylon Gate to the Academy. A walled structure marked the site and thirteen skeletons were found in its chambers (Figure 29.1, p. 410). One warrior was hit by two bronze arrowheads in his right leg and another by an iron spearhead in his ribs. The heads were laid on stones. The dearth of funerary artifacts (except for one strigil) is in line with the austerity of Spartan burial practices. A fragmentary inscription from the site has survived (IG II² 11678). It is written from right to left in the Laconian alphabet, and can be restored to read the words “Lacedaemonian,” “Chaeron,” and “Thibrachos.”

Figure 29.1 The Spartan tomb in the Kerameikos. Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Neg No D-DAI-ATH-Kerameikos 1992.

Image not available in this digital edition.

The battle on the Piraeus ended in Spartan victory. This show of strength, and perhaps an appeal from the brother of Nicias, the former Athenian friend of Sparta (Lysias 18 On the Property of Nicias’ Brother 10), moved Pausanias to reconcile the democrats of Piraeus with the oligarchs in the city. He would later be put on trial at home for his action and was narrowly acquitted. Following negotiations in Sparta with envoys from both Piraeus and the city, the two warring parties reached a reconciliation that included an amnesty.

29.5.C The Settlement Between the Democrats and the Oligarchs

Xenophon Hellenica 2.4.38

When the ephors and members of the Spartan assembly had heard all the representatives, they sent fifteen men off to Athens with instructions for them to act in concert with Pausanias to arrange a settlement as best they could. They succeeded in arranging the settlement, the terms of which were that peace should exist between the two sides, and that all should leave for their respective homes with the exception of the Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten who had been in power in Piraeus. They further decided that any in the city who were in fear should take up residence in Eleusis.

Ath. Pol. adds more details on the agreement.

Ath. Pol. 39.6

Nobody was to remember in anyone’s case the things he had done in the past, exception being made for members of the Thirty, the Ten, the Eleven, and those who had been in office in Piraeus, and not even in their case if they submitted an account [euthyna]. Those who had been in office in Piraeus should submit an account before the people of Piraeus, and those in the city before a committee of people with ratable property. Those unwilling to submit to this may, alternatively, leave their homes. Each party was to repay on its own loans taken out for the war.

The oligarchs continued to reside in Eleusis for two more years before Eleusis and Athens reunited under democratic rule. It is to the Athenians’ credit that many of them abided by the terms of the reconciliation. Democrats of later generations proudly presented this fact as proof of the spirit of moderation that imbued the city.

The following example illustrates the way the city dealt with attempts to deviate from the agreement. The democratic leader Thrasybulus moved to reward everyone who fought on the side of the democrats with Athenian citizenship, including aliens and slaves. However, the politician Archinus successfully opposed the motion as illegal (graphê paranomon), proposing instead to establish a legal procedure called paragraphê (counter-suit), which was designed to prevent prosecution that violated the amnesty agreement.

29.5.D Counter-Suit (Paragraphê)

Isocrates 18 Against Callimachus 2–3

(2) When you came back from Piraeus you could see a number of citizens rushing to lay false charges and trying to break the accords. You wanted to make them stop, and to demonstrate to everybody else that you drafted these accords not under duress, but in the belief that they were of benefit to the city; and so you passed a law, on a motion made by Archinus. This stated that, in the case of anyone breaking his oaths in going to law, the defendant had the right to object to the admissibility of the suit, the archons should first submit the matter to the court, and the party lodging the objection should speak first; (3) and, in addition, the party that loses should pay the one-sixth costs. The object of this was to insure that people having the gall to act on old grudges should not only be convicted of swearing falsely, but should also face immediate punishment and not simply await the vengeance of heaven…

Questions

1. Why did Argos and Thebes refuse the Spartan request to join the expedition against Athens, and what does their refusal suggest about Sparta’s standing in Greece (WEB 29.6)?

2. What were the terms of the reconciliation between the Athenian democrats and oligarchs (29.5.C)?

3. What were the challenges of implementing the amnesty and what was Archinus’ solution for them (29.5.D, and see also 29.7)?

29.7 Socrates’ Trial (399)

The reconciliation had its limits. It was tested in court when victims of the Thirty or other Athenians prosecuted their personal and political enemies for past wrongs, even though these were supposed to be forgotten. There was also a wish to punish men viewed as responsible for the military defeat in the war and its consequences. The search for culprits also affected the philosopher Socrates. See WEB 29.8 for the background to Socrates’ trial and his image.

Socrates was condemned to death, and thanks to the works of his pupils, Plato and Xenophon, his trial became a prime example of injustice in a democratic city. The fact was that he was instrumental in his own demise. He declined to go into exile, but chose to obey the city’s laws, unjust as he and others deemed them to be. In the agon timetos, the post-trial procedure in which the disputing parties recommended penalties to the court, Socrates angered the jurors by asking not for pity but a prize, or agreed reluctantly to pay a fine (Plato Apology 38b; in Xenophon Apology 23 he refused to suggest a penalty). He had the privilege, however, of dying the quicker and more respected death of drinking poison.

Plato Apology 36b–d

(36b) … So the man [prosecutor] is proposing the death penalty. All right; then what alternative shall I propose to you, Gentlemen of Athens? Evidently the one that I deserve! So, what is it that I deserve to suffer or pay as a fine? My crime is that, having learned lessons in life, I did not remain idle. No, I paid no attention to the things most people care about, money-making, managing one’s household affairs, military commands, public speaking, and the other offices, political parties, and political associations that are part of city-life, (36c) for I thought myself too decent a person to be able to survive pursuing these objectives. So I did not follow a direction in which I was likely to be of no service either to you or to myself, but rather one in which – so I maintain – I was likely to benefit each of you most as individuals. I tried to persuade each one of you not to focus so much on any of his belongings as on himself, to focus rather on making oneself as good and as wise as possible; and not to focus on the affairs of the city, but on the city itself, and to do the same thing in all other areas, too.

(36d) So what do I deserve for being such a person? Something good, Gentlemen of Athens, if my penalty must really be what I merit. And, in addition, something good that would be appropriate for me. So what is appropriate for a poor man who is your benefactor, a man who needs the spare time to advise you? There can be nothing more appropriate for such a man, Gentlemen of Athens, than for him to receive meals in the Prytaneum¹ – something that is far more appropriate for me than for any of you who has won a victory at Olympia in a horse race, or a two- or four-horse chariot race …

Note

1. The Prytaneum was the seat of magistrates. Here public meals were served to officials or to honored individuals, including Olympic victors.

Question

1. What, according to Socrates, was wrong in the public and private conduct of Athenians?

For the restored democracy following the Thirty, see 35.1 (“The Restored Athenian Democracy”), 35.2 (“The Fourth-Century Assembly and Council”), 35.4 (“Fourth-Century Democratic Leadership”), and 35.6 (“The Jury Courts”).

Review Questions

1. How was the oligarchic regime of the Thirty established (29.1)?

2. How did the oligarchs justify their rule (29.1–2, WEB 29.4)?

3. What did the amnesty agreement entail and how was it maintained (29.3, 29.5.C–D, 29.7, WEB 29.8)?

4. What was the Spartan policy toward oligarchic Athens (see 29.1–3, 29.5.A–B, WEB 29.6)?

5. How might Socrates’ speech (29.7) have upset Athenian democrats who fought against the Thirty?

Suggested Readings

The Thirty: Krentz 1982; Ostwald 1986, 460–496; Wolpert 2002b, 3–28, 119–136. The Lacedaemonians’ tomb: Camp 2001, 133–134. Amnesty: Tieman 2002; Quillin 2002; Wolpert 2002a; Ober 2002. Paragraphê: MacDowell 1978, 214–217; Carawan 2001. Socrates’ trial: Stone 1988; Brickhouse and Smith 1989; Vlastos 1994, 87–109; Wallace 1994.