A nalyse Pseudo-$ULVWRWOH¶V DSSURDFK WR WKH UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ RI 6RORQ¶V UHIRUPV (3160
words).
A bstract:
The essay attempts to criticise the prevailing approach to the Pseudo-$ULVWRWOH¶V Athenian
Constitution (A.P.) as a disinterested scholarly conpendium without any political message for the
Athens of 430th B.C. I begin with reviewing the influential theory of Day & Chambers, who
claimed that A.P. represents the four IRUPVRIGHPRFUDF\IRXQGLQ$ULVWRWOH¶V Politics (a radical
example of de-politicized reading). I argue, instead, that the historical part of A.P. is a fervent
GHIHQFHRIDFHUWDLQYHUVLRQRI6RORQ¶V patrios politeia . It must be understood as a critique of all
post-Solonian changes in the constitution, where Solonian institutions are used as a canon of
judgement (the seven Solonian chapters, I argue, have to be analysed in terms of panegyric). I
then turn to discuss the institutions A.P. ascribes to patrios politeia as representing the moderate
conservative ideal of 4th century oligarchic intellegentsia (esp. the relationship between
Areopagos and the ERXOƝ of 400). This picture is then related to the $ULVWRWOH¶V GHVFULSWLRQ RI
hoplite polityZKLFKKHDOVRFDOOVµPLGGOHFRQVWLWXWLRQ¶,DUJXHWKDW polity is what lurks behind
the description of Solonian settlement in the A.P. and is the proper Aristotelian element in the
work. 7RIXUWKHUGLVFORVH$3¶VSROLWLFDODJHQGD,UHIHUWRWKHZD\$3WUHDWVWKH5HLQVFULSWLRQ
RIWKHODZVRIµ6RORQ¶LQ%&)LQally, I offer a brief statement on the role RI6RORQ¶VSRHPV
that crown A.P. account of Solon.
K ey words: Solon, Ancestral Constitution, Aristotle, Democracy
Essay:
Ever since its first publication in 1891 the so-called Athenaion Politeia remains a matter of keen
controversy, in particular the historical section of the work (chs. 2-42). Any consensus regarding
purpose, method and ideology of these chapters is far from being reached. After firmly
grounding the difficult chapters in the intellectual and political context of the 4 th century, I shall
put forward an interpretation of their political agenda through the lenses of the Solonian
settlement (chs.5-DQGDWWHPSWWRH[SODLQWKHUHODWLRQRI$3¶V6RORQWR$ULVWRWOH¶V Politics.
There are two primary contexts in which we can read the historical part of the Athenaion Politeia
± the Aristotelian and the Athenian. To emphasize the Aristotelian element of the work is to read
LWZLWK$ULVWRWOH¶V Politics in the background; this approach attempts WRGLVFRYHU$ULVWRWOH¶V
theoretical principles that underpin the narrative. That is, broadly speaking, teleology and the
laws of constitutional development. The extreme version of this approach was upheld by J.H.
Day & M.H. Chambers in their controversial monograph from 1962.1 Persuaded that the author
of both texts is Aristotle himself, 2 they claimed that $3¶V narrative of the eleven metabolai 3 of
Athenian state was meant to exemplify the four forms of democracy posited in the Politics (see
note for a nutshell definition of these forms4). Then Day & Chambers proceeded to assign the
first, moderate, form of democracy to Solon (chs.5-12), second to Cleisthenes (ch. 21), third to
the Areopagite domination (chs. 23-24) and the fourth, PRVWUDGLFDOµILQDO¶IRUPRIGHPRFUDF\ to
the ascendancy of Ephialtes, Pericles and the demagogues, chs.25-28). In order to achieve this,
the historical data available to Aristotle KDGWREHµ«arranged, reformulated, and adjusted to
1
,QWKHH[SRVLWLRQRIWKHLUYLHZV,ZLOOPDLQO\UHO\RQ&KDPEHUV¶SURJUDPPDWLFDUWLFOHRI&KDPEHUV
Chambers 1961, pp.21-22
3
The list of the eleven metabolai , a sort of reading guide to the historical part of A.P., is found in Ch. 41.
4
Pol. 1292b22ff. T. J. Saunders succinctly GHVFULEHVWKHIRXUIRUPVDVµDQLQYHUVH ratio between the amount of
property possessed by the politically dominant part of the statHDQGWKHUXOHRIODZ¶6DXQGHUV ad.loc.)
2
accord with certain patterns and expectations original with Aristotle and not drawn from
dispassionate inquiry into historical fact.¶5
,VKDOORIIHUP\FULWLFLVPRI&KDPEHUV¶DOORWPHQWRIWKHILUVWIRUPRIGHPRFUDF\WR6RORQLQGXH
course. The most widely-recognized weak spot of this theory, however, is the attempt to
represent the post-Salaminian domination of Areopagos (ch.23) as the third stage on the way to
absolute democracy. To make an essentially oligarchic organ play this role, as D. Kagan, P.J.
Rhodes and others have observed, is rather absurd.6 Strangely, Chambers himself acknowledges
WKDWµWKHWKLUGIRUPRIGHPRFUDF\LVWKHOHDVWFRQYLQFLQJRIWKHIRXUWKDWFRPSULVH$ULVWRWOH¶V
VFKHPH¶.7 But if, according to Chambers, Aristotle invented the Areopagitic domination to fit the
third form, could he not make it fit better? 6LPLODUO\3HULFOHV¶UHVWULFWLRQRQFLWL]HQVKLSGRHVQRW
at all sound like a step in an irreversible progress to extreme democracy (26.4).
Rhodes holds moderate position. The narrative of A.P., according to him, GRHVGHVFULEHµ«Kow
WKH$WKHQLDQGHPRFUDF\DUULYHGDWLWVILQDOIRUP«EXWVXEWOHUWUDFHVRI$ULVWRWHOLDQSKLORVRSK\
DUHWREHVHHQRQO\LQWKHH\HRIWKHEHKROGHU¶. 8 Yet even this proves to be a dangerous ground.
F.W. Gilliard, adducing passages from the Nicomachean Ethics, has persuasively argued that
Aristotle viewed city-states as agents of free moral choice, just as their individual citizens, and
KHQFHµWKHUHDUHJRRGSKLORVRSKLFDOUHDVRQV for believing that Aristotle did not view history
teleologically (!)Ǧ9 Clearly, the more of Aristotelian corpus we are prepared to lug in, the more
problems arise (the Nicomachean Ethics, however, refers to the project of writing Politeiai and
announces the intention to write the Politics ( N.E . 1181b)).
What concerns me in all this is the tendency to downplay the second, Athenian context, in which
A.P. can and should be firmly rooted if only we want to understand it. The fact that the text was
written some eighty years after the last event described (403 B.C.) seems to have misled many
FULWLFVLQWRWKLQNLQJWKDWLWKDGQRSROLWLFDOPHVVDJHIRUWKH$WKHQVRI¶V (such is its date on
internal evidence10). Chambers, as we saw, turns A.P. into a sterile proof of a pre-conceived
absWUDFWWKHRU\DVRSSRVHGWRDQµhistorical cRPSHQGLXP¶). Rhodes, on the other hand, believed
that though Pseudo-Aristotle µLVVLQFHUHLQWKH>SROLWLFDO@RSLQLRQVZKLFKKHH[SUHVVHV¶KH
nevertheless µ«is usually repeating with his approval a comment he found in one of his
VRXUFHV¶,11 that is, Herodotus, Thucydides, Androtion, late 5th century oligarchic pamphlets.
Personally, ,ILQG5KRGHV¶QRWLRQRI3VHXGR-Aristotle expressing his opinion by using the readymade opinions from the old books, difficult to digest (yet even such a post-modernist procedure
would not have made Pseudo-$ULVWRWOH¶Vopinion less contemporary). It is true that A.P. on the
first sight may seem like a strange mixture of democratic and oligarchic values, and yet the
language of these 41 chapters does not ring like a mindless compilation of sources, nor as a
scientific experiment 12 ± it has in fact some very urgent political rhetoric to offer, especially as
regards Solon.
It is important to realise that what we are dealing with in the seven Solonian chapters (5-12) is
first and foremost a panegyric to the man, the institutions and the laws ascribed to him (indeed a
certain version of these laws and institutions). He is significantly placed at the beginning of
Athenian history proper DVWKHILUVWµFKDPSLRQRIWKHSHRSOH¶ tou dƝPRXSURVWDWƝV, 2.2). He is
5
Chambers 1961, p. 36
Kagan 1964, pp. 189-190; Rhodes 1981, pp.11-12
7
Chambers 1961, p.33
8
Rhodes 1981, p. 14
9
Gilliard 1971, p. 431 (again, criticizing Day & Chambers)
10
See Rhodes 1981, p. 51ff.
11
Ibid., p.14.
12
6HH7R\HIRUDUJXPHQWVDJDLQVWUHJDUGLQJ$3DVDQRUGLQDU\VSHFLPHQLQ$ULVWRWOH¶VFROOHFWLRQRI
constitutions.
6
praised as WKHPDQZKRµUHIUDLQHGIURPW\UDQQ\VDYHGKLVFRXQWU\DQGFUHDWHGWKH best possible
legislation (WDEHOWLVWDQRPRWKHWƝVDV,13 11. 2). Care is taken, moreover, to divert slanderous tales
(GLDEROƝ) from him, ZKRLQDOORWKHUWKLQJVZDVµVRPRGHUDWH metrion) and impartial ( koinon, 6.
¶.14 The only other figure in the book that receives comparable amount of sympathetic
attention, LV7KHUDPHQHVZKRµGLGQRWKLQJXQODZIXO¶DQGXSKHOGWKHWUDGLWLRQDO
constitution (patrios politeia , 34.3), and perished. I do not think it a coincidence that these two
leaders frame the whole narrative. Theramenes was the leader of moderate conservative party
that was responsible for the oligarchic constitution of 412, which A.P. regards with some
sympathy (chs. 29-7KHUDPHQHV¶FRPUDGH&OLWRSKRQHYRNHGWKHQDPHRI6RORQLQ
connection with the patrioi nomoi (30.3) and the ERXOƝ of 400 which they wanted to restore kata
ta patria LVRIFRXUVH6RORQ¶V ERXOƝ.15 I believe that the seven Solonian chapters is a
pronouncement on what the true patrios politeia was, thrown in the teeth of radical democrats
(who of course also revered Solon, in their own way).
When we look carefully at the $3¶Vversion of Solonian reforms, their chief quality proves to
be avoidance of extremes, moderation and mean. After &\ORQ¶VDERUWLYH coup Athens is an
extreme oligarchy (politeia tois allois pasi oligarchik Ɲ, 2.1). Solon is elected as a mediator and
occupies the middle ground between the two warring classes: the noble (JQǀULPRL) who have all
the land, and the poor (SHQƝWHV) who have no rights and no freedom (ibid.). He enacts the
cancellation of debts (such is A.P.¶VYHUVLRQRI seisactheia 16), but refrains from a complete
redistribution of property, as the plebs had hoped (SDQWDDQDGDVWDSRLƝsein, 10.2). He creates
four property classes17 to extend the participation in the state down to hoplites (zeugitai ), yet
restricts the fourth class of thetai to the assembly and the popular courts (7.2-4). He creates the
middling ERXOƝof 400 from the first three classes, but leaves the higher council of Areopagos
intact. Regarding these two councils it might be useful to feel the flow of the actual sentence,
µ6RORQLQVWLWXWHGDFRXQFLORIIRXUKXQGUHGRQHKXQGUHGIURPHDFKWULEHZKLOHde ) charging that of the Areopagitai
with the overseering of the laws (nomophylakein)¶ (8.4).
The phrase clearly implies that Areopagos was envisaged as a counter-balance for the democratic
ERXOƝ. Then the text launches a passionate encomium of Areopagos, which
µ«continued, as before, to be the overseer of the constitution, and looked after all the gravest and
greatest affairs of the citizens, 18 and corrected the wrongdoers, having power to punish and chastise, and
deposited its penalties on the Acropolis [the text is doubtful]ZLWKRXWH[SODQDWLRQV«DQGWULHGWKRVHZKR
FRQVSLUHGWRGLVVROYHGHPRFUDF\XQGHUWKHODZHQDFWHGE\6RORQǦ (ibid.).
As if to pull the carpet from under 4th century radical democrats, Areopagos here is made to
administer the law which ensured GHPRFUDF\¶V very preservation µWULHGWKRVHZKRFRQVSLUHGWR
GLVVROYHGHPRFUDF\¶19 Such positive attitude to Areopagos is sustained throughout A.P. as a
mark of Solonian legacy. Under Areopagite domination in 479-461 the Athenians were well
13
,ILQG5KRGHV¶VXJJHVWLRQWKDWWKLVLVµSUREDEO\DIRUPXODWLRQRIZKDW6RORQWKRXJKWKHZDVGRLQJUDWKHUDVDQ
expUHVVLRQRI$3¶VHQWKXVLDVWLFDSSURYDO¶XQWHQDEOH5KRGHVS
14
The story was that Solon fore-warned some of the nobles of the coming seisactheia and they enriched themselves.
15
See Morrow 1960, pp.77-82 for the role that patrios politeia played in the party-strife of the last hundred years of
Athenian freedom$FXUVRU\UHDGRI3ODWR¶V LawsZULWWHQLQ¶VZLOOPDNHLWFOHDUMXVWKRZKRWO\WKHLVVXHVRI
patrios politeia (e.g. Laws, 700a) and mixed constitution ( Laws, Bk.3 693ff) were debated at the time with reference
to history.
16
7KHQDUURZO\KLVWRULFDOULGGOHVRI6RORQ¶V seisactheia do not concern me in this essay.
17
I join the communis opinio WKDWWKHµFRQVWLWXWLRQRI'UDFR¶FKLVDFRQIXVLQJODWHULQWHUSRODWLRQZKLFKE\WKH
way, makes crucial Solonic chapters stand closer to the beginning of the work ± in the beginning of history).
18
I think reading SROLWǀQ PDNHVPRUHVHQVHWKDQ5LFKDUGV¶SROLWLNǀQ (8.4)
19
The law itself of course is almost certainly an anachronism. It might be a polemical reference to the law of
Eukrates passed in 336 B.C., where Areopagos itself is under suspicion (see McDowell 1978, p.176)
governed (NDOǀVHSROLWHXWKƝVDQ, 23.2, a rare compliment), ZKLOHDIWHU(SKLDOWHVµWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQ
VODFNHQHG¶DQLHVWKDLPDOORQWƝQSROLWHLDQ , 26.1). On the other hand, to balance out the Eupatrid
Areopagos Solon introduced a new way of the appointment of archons. A new method of mixed
sortition (NOƝUǀVLVHNSURNULWǀQ,8.1) was devised, with the four phylae putting fourth ten
candidates each from the first two property classes (pentacosiomedimnoi and hippeis).20
Now the statement concerning mixed sortition flatly contradicts the Politics (e.g.1273b35,
1281b25) which maintains that Solon relied on an µDULVWRFUDWLF¶SULQFLSOHRIHOHFWLRQ of officials
(KDLUƝsis). Moreover, the Politics does not mention the ERXOƝ of 400 at all. This important
discrepancy was used by Chambers in order to argue that in A.P. Aristotle has adjusted his
account of Solon in order to make Solon fit the first µIDUPHU¶form of democracy. 21 Yet the
Politics does not speak of the absence or presence ERXOƝ and mixed sortition in connection with
the first (or any) form of democracy. Where it does speak of mixed sortition, however, is in
connection with the µVHFRnd-EHVW¶IRUPRIFRQVWLWXWLRQAristotle calls polity, that is, a unique
blend of democracy and oligarchy. Consider e.g. Pol. 1294b5-14 and 1298b5-11 where the
ILOOLQJRIRIILFHVLQDQµDULVWRFUDWLFSROLW\¶LVHQYLVDJHGSUHFLVHO\DVDPL[WXUHRIGHPRFUDWLFµORW¶
DQGROLJDUFKLFµHOHFWLRQ¶.22 Moreover, something very like Solonian ERXOƝ EDVHGRQDµQRWWRR
KLJK¶SURSHUW\FULWHULRQLVDIHDWXUHRISROLW\ at 1298a33ff.
But perhaps even more important evidence against Chambers¶four-form view is the fact that
democracy in the Politics LVDµGeviant¶FRQVWLWXWLRQ that looks to the good of a particular class
and not to the µFRPPRQJRRG¶,
µ:KHQHYHUWKHRQH>PRQDUFK\@WKHIHZ>DULVWRFUDF\@RUWKHPDQ\>SROLWHLD@UXOHZLWKDYLHZWRWKHFRPPRQJRRG
these constitutions must be correct; but if they look to the private advantage, be it of the one [tyranny] or the few
>ROLJDUFK\@RUWKHPDVV>GHPRFUDF\@WKH\DUHGHYLDWLRQV¶ (1279a26ff.).
Since $3RSHQO\FRPSOLPHQWV6RORQ¶VVHWWOHPHQW as just and impartial, it cannot be one of the
forms of (deviant) democracy. Imperative of the common good, in fact, can be shown to accord
ZLWKWKHPLGGOHZD\RI6RORQ¶VUHIRUPVDQGZLWKWKHGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHLURXWFRPHOn the one
hand, as A.P. states µ%RWKIDFWLRQV[rich and poor] were disappointed with him... Solon was
RSSRVHGWRERWK¶ on the other, Solon, as we have seen, WDEHOWLVWDQRPRWKHWƝVDV (ibid.)
1RZWKHµFRUUHFW¶GHPRFUDF\LQWKH Politics, is polity. One of the way in which Aristotle
describes polity LVLQWHUPVRIWKHµPLGGOHFRQVWLWXWLRQ¶ Pol. 1295a25-1296b12), which C. Rowe
GHILQHVDVµDQLGHDOIRUPRISROLW\¶.23 Curiously, the account of the middle constitution very often
speaks of the dangerous polarization between rich and poor and resulting faction-strife,
µ,WLVWKHPLGGOHFLWL]HQVLQa state who are the most secure: they neither covet, like the poor, the possessions of
RWKHUVQRUGRRWKHUVFRYHWWKHLUVDVWKHSRRUFRYHWWKRVHRIWKHULFK«:KHUHWKHPLGGOHHOHPHQWLVODUJHWKHUHOHDVW
of all arise factions (astasiasta) and divisions aPRQJWKHFLWL]HQV¶ (1295b30, 1296a7).
In this connection the Politics mentions Solon expressly by name DVµRQHRIWKHmiddle citizenV¶
(WǀQPHVǀQSROLWǀQ)µZKRVHPLGGOHSRVLWLRQLVUHYHDOHGLQKLVSRHPV¶, and a EHOWLVWRVQRPRWKHWƝV
at that (1296a19, side by side with Lycurgus). Incidentally in the Athenaion Politeia 6RORQ¶V
social status is described in the very same termsµ6RORQZDVE\ELUWKDQGUHSXWHRQHRIWKH
OHDGLQJFLWL]HQVEXWE\ZHDOWKDQGSRVLWLRQRQHRIWKHPLGGOHVRUW¶ (WǀQPHVǀQSROLWǀQ, A.P. 5.3).
Significantly, 5KRGHVGRXEWVWKHDXWKHQWLFLW\RI6RORQ¶VµPLGGOHQHVV¶. A. P. avoids mentioning
20
See Rhodes 1981, p. 148
Chambers 1961., p. 27. For the first form consult Pol. 1292b21-b33
22
,QFLGHQWDOO\3ODWR¶VFLW\RI0DJQHVLDwhich Aristotle classed as a polity (1265b26-29), also widely used the
mixture of vote and lot (see esp. Laws, 756b-757a)
23
Rowe 2000, p. 381 + note
21
that he was a close kin of Peisitratus and Dropides 24 (and here, if anywhere, I think, we may
rightly suspect that some tinkering and fitting with regard to historical fact did take place).
At the end of the passage on WKHµPLGGOHFRQVWLWXWLRQ¶ in the Politics, Aristotle laments that since
QHLWKHURIWKHIDFWLRQV>WKHULFKDQGWKHSRRU@µRQJDLQLQJPDVWHU\HYHUVHWVXSDFRQVWLWXWLRQ
which is equally based (NRLQƝQ) «WKHPLGGOHFRQVWLWXWLRQKDVQHYHURFFXUUHGDQ\ZKHUH, or only
VHOGRPDQGVSRUDGLFDOO\¶DII. $QGKHUHFRPHVDYHU\P\VWHULRXVUHIHUHQFHWRµ2QHPDQ
in a long succession of leaders who was prevailed upon to allow a system of this NLQG¶LELG.
T.J. Saunders in his note on the text, left a question µ6RORQ"¶.25 Under the weight of probability I
would remove 6DXQGHUV¶ question mark. 7KLVILQDOO\SLQVGRZQ6RORQ¶VFRPPRQZHDOWKRIWKH
Athenaion Politeia as a middle constitution, a mixed constitution and a polity of the Politics (all
these terms prove to be roughly equivalent, especially in their status of the realisable secondbest). 26
Finally, I want to draw attention to the attempts of both our sources to enshrine this idealized
middle constitution firmly in the past and dissociate it from the future failures of democracy,
µ%XWLWVHHPVWKDWDOOWKLV>3HULFOHDQGHPRFUDF\@WRRNSODFHQRWDFFRUGLQJWR6RORQ¶LQWHQWLRQEXWDVDUHVXOWRI
circumstances ( apo symptomatos¶ ( Pol. 1274a11).
µ,WLVXQMXVWWRLQIHUKLVLQWHQWLRQIURPZKDWLVJRLQJRQWRGD\EXWLWKDVWREHLQIHUUHGIURPWKHUHVWRIKLV
FRQVWLWXWLRQ¶(A.P. 9.2)
These statements must be taken in context of the party-strife between moderate conservatives
and radical democrats in the 4th century. 27 The latter, ever since the RHLQVFULSWLRQRIµWKHODZVRI
6RORQ¶LQ 28, lived under the law and institution that Solon allegedly has made. The former,
as is evident from the quotes, opposed the status quo E\DUJXLQJWKDW6RORQ¶Vpatrios politeia had
nothing to do with contemporary democracy. For radical democrats the ReinscULSWLRQRIµWKH
ODZVRI6RORQ¶ZDVWKHGDZQRIDQHZDJH,29 whereas Pseudo-Aristotle pointedly refrains even to
call them µthe laws of Solon¶DOOXGLQJWRWKH5Hinscription he merely states that µThe people
JDLQHGFRQWURORIWKHDIIDLUVDQGVHWXSWKHSUHVHQWFRQVWLWXWLRQǦ1.1). The Solonian chapters,
on the other hand, proudly describe the kyrbeis RI6RORQ¶VWUXHODZLQVWDOOHGLQWKH6WRD
Basileios, that the Athenians swore to observe (7.1). We know from other sources that it is on
these very walls that the victorious radical democrats of 403 inscribed their version of µ6RORQ¶V
ODZ¶. By this slighting omission the moderate conservator of the Athenaion Politeia suggests, I
WKLQNWKDWWKHQHZµ6RORQ¶VODZ¶LVDIDUFU\IURPWKHRULJLQDORQH
To crown the account of Solon, A.P. advertises conservative policy in an extended quotation of
law-JLYHU¶VRZQYHUVH. The preceding chapters heavily condition our interpretation of the poems.
At the same time it is difficult not to feel the civic pathos with which the poetry is quoted ± this
is much more than just an antiquarian appendix to the text. It is a call to political change. Failure
to hear it distorts our understanding of the Athenaion Politeia .
24
Rhodes 1981, p. 123. In fact at one point A.P. shows an open attempt to dissociate Solon and Peisistratus as far as
possible (17.2)
25
Saunders 1981, ad.loc.
26
$QGLQIDFWWKHµKRSOLWH¶SROLW\DVZHOOHVSLIZHEHOLHYHWKDWWKH\OXUNEHKLQGWKH zeugitae. Rhodes argues (in my
RSLQLRQFRQFOXVLYHO\IRUWKHµPLOLWDU\H[SODQDWLRQ¶RIERWKhippeis and zeugitae µ=HXJLWƝV, in referring to a hoplite,
UHIHUVWRKLVEHLQJDPHPEHURIDSKDODQ[Ǧ5KRGHVS
27
Morrow 1960, p. 79
28
See McDowell 1978, pp.46-48µ>1LNRPDFKRV@ZDVLQVWUXFWHGWRLQVFULEHWKHODZVRI6RORQLQIRXUPRQWKV«¶
(Lysias, 30.2)
29
McDowell, 1978, p. 47
Equal laws for bad and good alike,
Providing straight justice for each man,
,ZURWH« (West fr. 36. 18-20, tr. after Rhodes)
I gave to the people the bounty that was sufficient for them...
And to those who had poZHU«
I declared that they should have nothing inappropriate [aeikes] .
I stood holding my mighty shield against both,
And did not allow either to win an unjust victory. (West fr.5.1, 3-6)
It is in the pathos of these verses, I think, that Aristotelian element of the work meets the
Athenian. Abstract principles are fleshed out in a god-like individual, whose greatness is meant
to shame posterity.
«now they are angry with me,
And all look askance as if I were their ene my.
(West fr. 34. 1, 4-5)
Bibliography:
Chambers, M. (1961). ³$ULVWRWOH¶V)RUPVRI'HPRFUDF\´7UDQVDFWLRQVDQG3URFHHGLQJVRIWKH
American Philological Association, vol. 92, pp. 20-36.
Gilliard, F.W. (1971). ³7HOHRORJLFDO'HYHORSPHQWLQWKH$WKHQDLRQ3ROLWHLD´, Historia, Bd. 20,
H. 4 (3rd Qtr., 1971), pp. 430-435.
Kagan, D. (1964). ³$ULVWRWOH¶V+LVWRU\RI$WKHQLDQ'HPRFUDF\E\-DPHV'D\0RUWLPHU
&KDPEHUV´ Classical Philology, vol. 59, No. 3 (Jul., 1964), pp. 187-190.
Kenyon, F.G. (1920). Aristotelis Atheniensium Respublica. Oxford.
MacDowell, D. M. (1978). The Law in Classical Athens. London.
Morrow, G. R. (1960). 3ODWR¶V&UHWDQ&LW\. Princeton.
Rhodes, P. J. (2002). Aristotle. The Athenian Constitution. Penguin.
Rhodes, P.J. (1981). A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.
Rowe, C. (2002). ³$ULVWRWHOLDQ&RQVWLWXWLRQV´in Rowe, C., Schofield, M. (eds.), The
Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. Cambridge.
Toye, L. D. (1999). ³$ULVWRWOH¶V2WKHU3ROLWHLDL:DVWKH$WKHQDLRQ3ROLWHLD$W\SLFDO"´. The
Classical Journal, vol. 93, No. 3 (Feb. ± Mar., 1999), pp. 235-253.
Saunders, T. J. & Sinclair, T.A. (1981). Aristotle. The Politics. Penguin.