Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookluna.

com

Concentrating Solar Power Technology: Principles,

Developments and Applications 1st Edition - eBook
PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/concentrating-solar-power-
technology-principles-developments-and-applications-ebook-
pdf/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookluna.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Concentrating Solar Power Technology : principles,

developments and. 2nd Edition Keith Lovegrove - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/concentrating-solar-power-technology-
principles-developments-and-ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com

Solar PV Power: Design, Manufacturing and Applications

From Sand to Systems 1st Edition Rabindra Kumar Satpathy -
eBook PDF
https://ebookluna.com/download/solar-pv-power-design-manufacturing-
and-applications-from-sand-to-systems-ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com

OFF GRID SOLAR: Photovoltaic solar power system for your

home: An easy guide to install a solar power system in
your home (eBook PDF)
https://ebookluna.com/product/off-grid-solar-photovoltaic-solar-power-
system-for-your-home-an-easy-guide-to-install-a-solar-power-system-in-
your-home-ebook-pdf/
ebookluna.com

Cosmetic Science and Technology. Theoretical Principles

and Applications 1st Edition Edition Kazutami Sakamoto -
eBook PDF
https://ebookluna.com/download/cosmetic-science-and-technology-
theoretical-principles-and-applications-ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com
Solar Energy Desalination Technology 1st Edition Edition
Hongfei Zheng (Auth.) - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/solar-energy-desalination-technology-
ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com

Solar Heating and Cooling Systems: Fundamentals,

Experiments and Applications 1st Edition - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/solar-heating-and-cooling-systems-
ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com

Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering:

Advances in Composting and Vermicomposting Technology 1st
edition - eBook PDF
https://ebookluna.com/download/current-developments-in-biotechnology-
and-bioengineering-advances-in-composting-and-vermicomposting-
technology-ebook-pdf/
ebookluna.com

Electrochemical Power Sources: Fundamentals, Systems, and

Applications 1st Edition- eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/electrochemical-power-sources-
fundamentals-systems-and-applications-ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com

Sustainable Material Solutions for Solar Energy

Technologies: Processing Techniques and Applications 1st
edition- eBook PDF
https://ebookluna.com/download/sustainable-material-solutions-for-
solar-energy-technologies-processing-techniques-and-applications-
ebook-pdf/
ebookluna.com
Concentrating Solar Power Technology
Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy

Concentrating Solar
Power Technology
Principles, Developments,
and Applications

Second Edition

Edited by
Keith Lovegrove
Managing Director, ITP Thermal Pty Ltd, ITP Energised Group, Canberra,
Australia

Wes Stein
Chief Research Scientist, Energy, CSIRO, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

An imprint of Elsevier
Woodhead Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier
The Officers’ Mess Business Centre, Royston Road, Duxford, CB22 4QH, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements
with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can
be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical
treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others,
including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-819970-1 (print)
ISBN: 978-0-12-822472-4 (online)

For information on all Woodhead publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Brian Romer

Acquisitions Editor: Maria Convey
Editorial Project Manager: Chiara Giglio
Production Project Manager: Surya Narayanan
Jayachandran
Cover Designer: Mark Rogers

Typeset by SPi Global, India

Author bio

(* ¼ main contact)

Primary editor and Chapters 1* and 2*

Dr. Keith Lovegrove is the managing direc-

tor of ITP Thermal Pty Ltd, which leads work
on solar thermal and hydrogen energy sys-
tems within the ITP Energised group of com-
panies. He has over 30 years of experience in
renewable energy combined with 15 years of
teaching experience in undergraduate and
postgraduate courses in energy systems and
systems engineering. He was previously the
leader of the Solar Thermal Group at the Aus-
tralian National University. In that role, he
was the lead inventor and design and con-
struction team leader of the 500m2 Genera-
tion II Big Dish solar concentrator,
recognized with a Light Weight Structures Association of Australia, 2009
design award and a 2011 citation from the Institute of Engineers Australia
ACT Engineering Excellence awards. Keith is currently a member of the Uni-
versity of Adelaide’s Centre for Energy Technology advisory board, the Aus-
tralian Renewable Energy Agency’s Advisory Panel, the Australian Solar
Thermal Energy Association board, and chair of the Australian Solar Thermal
Research Institute steering committee.
Keith Lovegrove
ITP Thermal Pty Ltd
ITP Energised Group
Canberra
ACT, Australia
E-mail: [email protected]

xix
xx Author bio

Editor and Chapter 1

Wes Stein is a Chief Research Scientist for

Solar Technologies at CSIRO. He has been
active in CSP research for over 25 years
and was instrumental in establishing the
National Solar Energy Centre at CSIRO,
including building Australia’s first solar
tower. He is also a Chief Technologist for
the Australian Solar Thermal Research
Institute where he leads the development of
strategies and technologies for the next gen-
eration of CSP. Prior to CSIRO, he worked in
the power industry for 20 years in power
station operation and design, as well as
investigating and developing new energy
technologies for utilities. Wes represents Australia on the International Energy
Agency’s Solar PACES Executive Committee, the predominant CSP
international body.
Wes Stein
CSIRO Energy
Newcastle
Australia
E-mail: [email protected]

Chapter 2
John Pye is a researcher in the Australian
National University Solar Thermal Group
and also lectures in the Department of
Engineering.
John Pye
Research School of Electrical
Energy and Materials Engineering
Australian National University
Canberra
ACT
Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
 Author bio xxi

Chapter 3

Richard Meyer is co-founder and managing

director of Germany-based Suntrace. From
2006 to 2009, he headed the technical analy-
sis and energy yield teams of Epuron and
SunTechnics. From 1996 to 2006, Richard
worked for DLR (German Aerospace Cen-
ter), where he set up the satellite-based ser-
vices SOLEMI and DLR-ISIS for
analyzing the potential for CSP. He co-
founded the IEA Task ‘Solar Resource
Knowledge Management’, for which he is
the representative to the SolarPACES Exec-
utive Commitee. Dr Richard Meyer holds a
diploma in geophysics and a PhD in physics
from Munich University.

Kaushal Chhatbar is a solar energy profes-

sional with 9 + years of international experi-
ence in solar energy business with rich
experience in project development of solar
concentrating technologies and photovoltaics
(PV). He now focuses on solar PV – diesel
hybrid power plants with/without electrical
energy storage and rooftop solar PV plants.
Kaushal is a mechanical engineer with a
Master’s degree in Renewable Energies from
University of Oldenburg, Germany. During
his master’s, he did his thesis on resource
assessment for solar power plants, especially
concentrating solar power plants (CSP) and
its impact on their yield. Kaushal has hands on experience in the installation
and maintenance of solar radiometers and has published several research papers
on this topic.
xxii Author bio

Simon Weber is a data analyst of Germany-

based Suntrace. He has a Diploma (MSc) in
Geophysics and is specialized in remote
sensing. Applied to the field of large scale
solar, he has contributed to various projects
across the globe. For the highly specialized
expert advisory firm Suntrace, he is conduct-
ing the assessment of solar resource for CSP
and PV projects. Furthermore, Simon man-
ages and carries out on-site solar measure-
ment campaigns.
Richard Meyer∗, Martin Schlecht,
Kaushal Chhatbar, and Simon Weber
Technology & Innovation
Suntrace GmbH
Hamburg
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]

Chapter 4

Martin Schlecht is co-founder and manag-

ing director of Germany-based Suntrace, a
highly specialized expert advisory firm in
large scale solar. His responsibilities include
the assessment of CSP and PV project sites
and their feasibility. He has a Diploma
(MSc) in mechanical engineering and more
than 15 years’ work experience in the power
industry, covering fossil-fired, concentrating
solar thermal and photovoltaic, including
international hands-on project development
and project implementation.
Richard Meyer and Martin Schlecht∗
Technology & Innovation
Suntrace GmbH
Hamburg
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
 Author bio xxiii

Chapter 5
Natalia Cald
es, graduate in economics and
business administration from the Universi-
dad Pompeu Fabra of Barcelona, MsC in
applied economics from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, and PhD in agricultural
and natural resources economics from the
Universidad Polit
ecnica de Madrid, Spain.
Working in CIEMAT since 2004, her
research focuses on energy policy as well
as socio-economic and environmental
impact assessment of energy projects. She
has participated in several European Com-
mission and National research projects
focusing on renewable energy cooperation policies as well as externalities of
power generation technologies. From 2012 to 2015, she coordinated the EU
funded project BETTER which aims at assessing the opportunities and barriers
associated to renewable energy cooperation between Europe and neighbouring
countries.
Before joining CIEMAT, she worked in the field of development economics
for various United Nations Agencies as well as for the International Food Policy
Research Institute in Washington DC (https://www.ifpri.org). Among other
tasks, she was involved in the impact evaluation of various poverty reduction
programs in Latin America and Africa. Prior to that, she also worked as a trade
analyst for the Spanish Commercial Office in Sydney, Australia.
In her free time, volunteers at Energı́a Sin Fronteras (ESF), a foundation that
supports rural electrification and water projects in less developed countries.
You may visit ESF web page at http://www.energiasinfronteras.org/.

Yolanda Lechón, PhD in agricultural engi-

neering for the Polytechnic University of
Madrid, she is the Head of the Energy Sys-
tem Analysis Unit of Energy since 2013.
Her main research activities have been
focused in the economic evaluation of the
external costs and benefits associated to
the production and consumption of energy,
the application of the ExternE methodology
to the evaluation of externalities of energy
and transport, Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment of energy technologies and pro-
cesses with special focus on biomass,
xxiv Author bio

biofuels and solar thermal technologies, environmentally and socially extended

economic input output modelling to evaluate socioeconomic and environmental
effects of energy technologies and energy system modelling using techno eco-
nomic partial equilibrium optimization models.
She has participated in several European Commission and National research
projects and has participated as evaluator in several international R&D pro-
grammes and is co-author of more than 80 papers and book chapters and more
than 60 contributions to conferences and workshops.
Natalia Cald
es∗ and Yolanda Lechón
Energy System Analysis Unit
Energy Department
CIEMAT
Madrid
Spain
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Chapter 6

Prof. Dr. Werner J. Platzer is a physicist

and received his PhD from the Albert-Lud-
wigs-University Freiburg in 1988 on the
material optimization of transparent insula-
tion. He has been working for more than
30 years for Fraunhofer ISE in Germany in
R&D of solar thermal energy, facade tech-
nology, and energy efficiency in buildings.
Since more than 15 years however his focus
is on concentrating solar thermal technology
for process heat and power. Being Professor
at the Faculty for Environment and Sustain-
ability, University of Freiburg he teaches and
supervises Master and PhD students. He is
chairman of IEC TC 117 on the standardiza-
tion for solar thermal electricity (CSP) and has been actively involved in many
European and international projects on CSP and Solar Process Heat. He has
authored more than 200 articles and conference papers.
 Author bio xxv

David Mills has worked in non-imaging

optics and solar concentrating systems from
1976. At the University of Sydney, he ran the
project that created the double cermet selec-
tive absorber coating now used widely on
solar evacuated tubes and developed the
CLFR concept. He was Cofounder, Chair-
man and CSO of both SHP P/L and Ausra
Inc. (later Areva Solar). He has been Presi-
dent of ISES (1997–99), first Chair of the
International Solar Cities Initiative, and
VESKI Entrepreneur in Residence for the
State of Victoria (2009).

Wilson Gardner is a mechanical engineer

from the University of Newcastle, NSW.
He is a research engineer and project leader
at CSIRO’s Division of Energy Technology
with 25 years of experience. In 2008 he
joined the lead team of the Australian opera-
tions of Ausra Pty Ltd (part of Ausra, Inc.,
formerly Solar Heat and Power), which then
became Areva Solar and he helped further
develop the CLFR technology and commis-
sioned the first CLFR system to be connected
to the grid via saturated steam to Liddell
power station in 2009. From 2012 he has been responsible for the engineering
design of various high-temperature solar thermal receiver systems and project
delivery of those systems at CSIRO. He has authored and coauthored several
conference papers and scientific publications on solar thermal energy systems.
Werner J. Platzer∗
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE
Freiburg im Breisgau
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]

David Mills
Formerly Ausra Inc
Mountain View
CA
United States
Wilson Gardner
CSIRO National Solar Energy Centre—Solar Thermal Technologies
Newcastle
Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
xxvi Author bio

Chapter 7

Eduardo Zarza Moya, Industrial Engineer

with a PhD, born in 1958. At present he is
the R&D Technical Coordinator at the Plata-
forma Solar de Almerı́a. He has an experi-
ence of 34 years with solar concentrating
systems, and he has been the Director of
national and International R&D projects
related to solar energy and parabolic trough
collectors. He participated in the elaboration
of the Implementation Plan for the Strategic
Energy Technology (SET) Plan for Concen-
trated Solar Power (CSP). Member of the
Scientific and Technical Committee of
ESTELA (European Solar Thermal Electric-
ity Association) and Spanish representative
at the SolarPACES Executive Committee.
Eduardo Zarza Moya
CIEMAT—Plataforma Solar de Almerı́a
Almerı́a
Spain
E-mail: [email protected]
 Author bio xxvii

Chapter 8

Lorin L. Vant-Hull (BS in Physics, Univer-

sity of Minnesota, 1954; MS, UCLA, 1956;
PhD, California Institute of Technology,
1960–67: thesis in Low Temperature Phys-
ics) has been involved in Concentrating
Solar Energy since 1972. He joined the
Physics Department at the University of
Houston in 1969 and became a Full Profes-
sor of Physics in 1973, the year he received
NSF (RANN) funding for the first feasibility
study of the Central Receiver concept,
“Solar Thermal Power Systems Based on
Optical Transmission”. This study, with MacDonnell Douglas Astronautics
as a subcontractor, led directly to the design and construction and successful
operation of the concentrating central receiver pilot/demonstration plants, Solar
One (water-steam) converted later to Solar Two (molten salt) as 10 MWe grid
connected plants. The computer codes developed under his direction to solve
the design, optimization, layout, and performance issues at these plants have
been used in many studies funded by DOE, NREL, SANDIA, and many major
engineering firms in the development of central receiver plant designs around
the world. He was a member of the joint US-Russia solar specialists team, spent
an eight month sabbatical at the L-M University in Munich and a three month
term as a Visiting Scientist at CSIRO, Australia. He served for 44 years as an
Associate Editor and Reviewer for the Journal of Solar Energy, and has been on
the board of TXSES, ASES, and ISES. He retired from the University as a Pro-
fessor Emeritus of Physics in 2001, but has continued as a consultant.
Lorin L. Vant-Hull
Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Houston
Houston
TX
United States
E-mail: [email protected]
xxviii Author bio

Chapter 9

Wolfgang Schiel, Diplom Physicist, born in

1948 in Hamburg, has over 30 years’ experi-
ence in solar engineering of Dish/Stirling
systems, Parabolic Trough collectors, and
the Solar Updraft Tower. After his degree
at the University of Hamburg he worked
with the German Aerospace Research Estab-
lishment in Stuttgart. In 1988 he joined
schlaich bergermann und partner and
became Managing Director of sbp sonne
gmbh in 2009.

Thomas Keck, Mechanical Engineer, born in

1959 in Stuttgart, joined schlaich bergermann
und partner in 1988 and works as design engi-
neer and project manager for Dish/Stirling
systems, Heliostats, and PV trackers.
Wolfgang Schiel and Thomas Keck∗
schlaich bergermann partner (sbp)
Stuttgart
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Chapter 10
Steve Horne is Co-Founder and Chief Tech-
nical Officer at SolFocus. He began design-
ing the concept of SolFocus’ CPV solar
technology in 2005. Before co-founding Sol-
Focus, Steve was the Director of Engineering
at GuideTech, a leading semiconductor test
equipment company, and had previously
spent 6 years running a technology consult-
ing firm Tuross Technology. He served as
Vice President of Engineering at Ariel Elec-
tronics and his early career experience
includes commissioning two 500 MW steam
generated power plants in New South Wales,
Australia.
 Author bio xxix

Dr John Lasich is founder and Director of

RayGen Resources Pty Ltd which develops,
manufactures, and deploys the companies’
world leading solar cogeneration technol-
ogy, producing heat and dispatchable
power for industrial and utility
applications.
John has 35 years in the ‘mainstream’
and ‘renewable’ energy sectors including
10 years in the petrochemical, manufactur-
ing, and power industries before entering
the solar industry. He has held the position
of CTO for some 20 years creating new
solar technology and winning several Engi-
neering Excellence awards. His experience
also includes automated solar module production along with design, construc-
tion, and operation of significant energy projects in Australia and
internationally.
John holds a PhD degree in solar energy. As a pioneer in the technology, he
has been awarded many patents and been an invited speaker at international
conferences, publishing several ‘World Firsts’ including a world record system
efficiency of 40.4% in collaboration with UNSW. John is a member of the Inter-
national Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards committee. Recently he
received the Distinguished Alumnus award from Victoria University for his
contribution to the solar industry and accepted the Governors’ ‘Export Innova-
tion’ award for ground-breaking exports to China.
Steve Horne
SolFocus Inc.
Victorville
CA
United States
E-mail: [email protected]

John Lasich∗
Raygen Resources Pty Ltd
Nunawading
VIC
Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
xxx Author bio

Chapter 11

Wolf-Dieter Steinmann has been working

at the German Aerospace Center (DLR)
since 1994 and is working in the area of
medium and high temperature heat storages
for applications in power plants and process
industry. He was project manager of the DIS-
TOR, PROSPER, and NextPCM projects
dealing with the development of latent heat
storages and of the CellFlux project aiming
at new concepts for sensible heat storage.
He completed his PhD thesis on solar steam
generators and has worked on the simulation
and analysis of the dynamics of thermody-
namic systems.
Wolf-Dieter Steinmann
German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics
Stuttgart
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]

Chapter 12

Prof. HongGuang Jin is academician of

Chinese Academy of Sciences; professor
and director of Laboratory of Distributed
Energy System and Renewable Energy, Insti-
tute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences (CAS); and president
of Chinese Society of Engineering Thermo-
physics. He received his Ph.D. degree at
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan in
1994. His experience and related research
background are in the fields of thermophy-
sics, chemical engineering, simulation of
energy conversion processes, analysis energy
systems, system synthesis for polygeneration
system, demonstration of CCHP, and solar thermal power plants. He is the princi-
pal inventor of a novel power system with chemical looping combustion for CO2
capture. He has received National Natural Science Award.
Other documents randomly have
different content
themselves the best sort of people, for they had never taken away both money and life; and he
apprehended with good reason that this measure would render the aliens generally hostile to the
government. But his colleagues, after what they had already done, were not disposed to view this
question on the moral side, and, having braved the hatred of their fellow-citizens, they were not afraid
of provoking the aliens. The proposition was adopted; and Theramenes was invited to single out his
prey with the rest: but he refused to stain his hands with this innocent blood. It was however resolved
to begin by taking ten lives; and, for the sake of covering the real motive, two of the victims were to be
poor men, who would therefore be supposed to have suffered for some political offence.
 Men who were capable of perpetrating such
[403 b.c.] actions could not long endure the presence of an
associate who refused to take his full share of their
guilt and odium. The colleagues of Theramenes resolved to rid
themselves of a troublesome monitor who might soon prove a
dangerous opponent. They first endeavoured to communicate their
distrust of his designs to the members of the council in private
conversation, and then concerted a plan for an open attack on him. But
to insure its success they surrounded the council-chamber with a band
of the most daring of their younger followers, armed with daggers,
which they did not take much pains to conceal. Critias then came
forward to accuse Theramenes, who was present.
Theramenes made a defence, which, with respect to the charges of
Critias, was in most points a satisfactory vindication of his conduct. A
murmur of approbation, which ran through the assembly, warned Critias
that he could not safely rely on its subserviency for the condemnation of
Theramenes; and, after having conferred a few moments with his
colleagues, he called in his armed auxiliaries, and stationed them round
the railing within which the council sat. He then told the councillors, that
he thought he should be wanting in the duty of his station, if he suffered
his friends to be misled; and that the persons whom they now saw
round them, also declared that they would not permit a man who was
manifestly aiming at the ruin of the oligarchy to escape with impunity.
Now by virtue of the new constitution none of the Three Thousand could
be put to death except by a sentence of the council; but all who were
not included in that list might be sent to execution without any form of
trial by the Thirty. He therefore declared that, with the unanimous
consent of his colleagues, he struck out the name of Theramenes from
the list, and condemned him to death.b
Xenophon gives a vivid picture of the scene that followed: “On hearing
this, Theramenes sprang upon the altar of Vesta, and said, ‘But I,
gentlemen, entreat you for what is most strictly legal—that it may not
be in the power of Critias to strike off me, or any of you whom he
pleases; but according to the law which these men passed respecting
those in the list, according to that may be the decision, both for you and
for me. And of this, indeed,’ said he, ‘by the gods, I am not ignorant,
that this altar will be no protection to me; but what I wish to show is,
that these men are not only most unjust with regard to mankind, but
also impious with regard to the gods. At you, however, who are good
and honourable men, I am astonished if you do not come forward in
your own defence; knowing moreover, as you do, that my name is not at
all more easy to strike off than each of yours.’ Upon this, the herald of
the Thirty ordered the Eleven to come for Theramenes; and when they
had entered with the officers, led by Satyrus the boldest and most
shameless of their number, Critias said, ‘We deliver up to you this
Theramenes here, condemned according to law: do ye, Eleven, seize,
and lead him off to the proper place, and do your duty with him.’ When
he had thus spoken, Satyrus dragged the condemned man from the
altar, aided by the other officers. Theramenes, as was natural, called
both on gods and men to look on what was doing. But the council kept
quiet, seeing both the fellows of Satyrus at the bar, and the space
before the council-house filled with guards, and not being ignorant they
had come with daggers. So they led off the man through the market-
place, while he declared with a very loud voice how he was being
treated. And this one expression also is told of him. When Satyrus said
that he would rue it if he were not silent, he asked, ‘And shall I not then
rue it, if I am?’
“Moreover, when he was compelled to die, and drank the hemlock,
they said that he flung out on the floor what was left of it, saying, ‘Let
this be for the lovely Critias.’ Now I am aware that these sayings are not
worth mentioning: but this I consider admirable in the man, that when
death was close at hand, neither his good sense nor his pleasantry
deserted his soul.”c
In Theramenes we find much to condemn, and nothing to approve,
except that he shrank from following his profligate associates in their
career of wickedness. If he had reason to complain that they did not
spare the author of their elevation, the other victims of their tyranny had
much more cause to rejoice in his fate. He seems to have died unpitied
by either of the parties whom he had alternately courted and
abandoned.
His death released the Thirty—among whom it is probable that
Satyrus was immediately chosen to supply his place—from the last
restraints of fear or shame which had kept them within any bounds of
decency; and they now proceeded to bolder and more thorough-going
measures. They emulated the ancient tyrants, who had often removed
the lowest class of the commonalty, for whom it was difficult to find
employment, from the capital into the country, and prohibited all
Athenians who were not on the list of the Three Thousand from entering
the city.
But by the oligarchs this step seems not to have been adopted so
much with a view to their safety, as to increase the facility of rapine and
murder. They continued to send out their emissaries to seize the persons
and confiscate the property of the citizens, who were now scattered by
their decree over Attica. The greater part of the outcasts took refuge in
Piræus; but when it was found that neither the populous town, nor their
rural retreats, could shelter them from the inquisition of their
oppressors, numbers began to seek an asylum in foreign cities; and
Argos, Megara, and Thebes, were soon crowded with Athenian exiles.
The oligarchs, notwithstanding their Lacedæmonian garrison, and
their reliance on Spartan protection, began to be alarmed at the state to
which they had reduced themselves, and to dread the vengeance of
their exiled enemies, who were waiting so near at hand for an
opportunity of attacking them; and they applied to the Spartan
government to interpose for the purpose of averting the danger. The
Spartans, instigated perhaps by Lysander, issued an edict, which showed
to what a degree they were intoxicated by prosperity. It empowered the
Athenian rulers to arrest the exiles in every Greek city, and under a
heavy penalty, forbade any one to interfere in their behalf.
But this decree was no less impolitic than inhuman; it disclosed a
domineering spirit, which could not but produce general alarm and
disgust; but its object was beyond the reach of the Spartan power. At
Argos and Thebes, and probably in other cities, the injunction and the
threat were disregarded; the exiles continued to find hospitable shelter.
The Thebans more particularly took pains to manifest their contempt for
the Spartan proclamation by a counter decree, directing that the
persecuted Athenians should be received in all the Bœotian towns; that
if any attempt should be made to force them away, every Bœotian
should lend his aid to rescue them; and that they should not be
obstructed in any expedition which they might undertake against the
party now in possession of Athens.
This measure, though the spirit it breathes is so different from that in
which the Theban commander had voted for the extirpation of the
Athenian people, was not dictated either by justice or compassion
towards Athens, but by jealousy and resentment towards Sparta. Very
soon after the close of the war causes had arisen to alienate the
Thebans from their old ally. They were always disposed to set a high
value on the services which they had rendered to the Peloponnesian
cause and now conceived that they had not been properly requited.
They put forward some claims relating to the spoil collected at Decelea,
and likewise to the treasure carried to Sparta by Lysander, which, chiefly
it seems at his instance, had been resisted or neglected. Hence they
could not without great dissatisfaction see Athens in the hands of
Lysander’s creatures.

THE REVOLT OF THRASYBULUS

Thrasybulus, like Alcibiades, had been formally
[404-403 b.c.] banished by the Thirty; though it is not certain that
he was at Athens when their government was
established. He was however at Thebes when their furious tyranny
began to drive the citizens by hundreds into exile; and the temper now
prevailing at Thebes encouraged him to undertake the deliverance of his
country. Having obtained a small supply of arms and money from his
Theban friends, he crossed the border with a band of about seventy
refugees, and seized the fortress of Phyle, which stood on an eminence
projecting from the side of Mount Parnes, with which it was connected
by a narrow ridge with precipitous sides, twelve or thirteen miles from
Athens. The fortifications had either escaped when the other Attic
strongholds were demolished by the Thirty, or were soon restored to a
defensible state. The oligarchs, confident that they should soon be able
to crush so feeble an enemy, marched against them with the Three
Thousand and their equestrian partisans.b
On their arrival, some of the young men, in a foolhardy spirit,
immediately assaulted the place, producing, however, no effect upon it,
but retiring with many wounds.
When the Thirty were desirous of
surrounding it with works, that they
might reduce it by cutting off all
supplies of provisions, there came
on during the night a very heavy fall
of snow, covered with which they
returned the next day into the city,
after losing very many of their camp
followers by an attack of the men
from Phyle. Knowing, however, that
they would also plunder the country,
if there were no watch to prevent it,
they despatched to the frontiers, at
the distance of fifteen furlongs from
Phyle, all but a few of the
Lacedæmonian guards, and two
squadrons of horse. These having Officer’s Helmet
encamped on a rough piece of
ground, proceeded to keep watch.
There were by this time assembled at Phyle about seven hundred men,
whom Thrasybulus took, and marched down by night; and having
grounded arms about three or four stades from the party on guard,
remained quietly there. When it was towards daybreak, and the enemy
now began to get up and retire from their post on necessary purposes,
and the grooms were making a noise in currying their horses—at this
juncture the party with Thrasybulus took up their arms again, and fell
upon them at a run. Some of them they despatched, and routed and
pursued them all for six or seven furlongs; killing more than a hundred
and twenty of the infantry; and of the cavalry, Nicostratus (surnamed
The Handsome) and two others also, whom they surprised while yet in
their beds. After returning and erecting a trophy, they packed up all the
arms and baggage they had taken, and withdrew to Phyle. And now the
horsemen in the city came out to the rescue, but found none of the
enemy any longer on the spot; having waited, therefore, till their
relatives had taken up the dead, they returned into the city.
 Upon this the Thirty, no longer thinking their cause safe, wished to
secure for themselves Eleusis, that they might have a place of refuge, if
required. Having sent their orders to the cavalry, Critias and the rest of
the Thirty came to Eleusis; and having held a review of the horse in the
place, alleging that they wished to know what was their number, and
how much additional garrison they would require, they ordered them all
to write down their names, and as each one wrote it down in his turn, to
pass out through the postern to the sea. On the beach they had posted
their cavalry on both sides, and as each successively passed out, their
attendants bound him. When all were arrested, they ordered
Lysimachus, the commander of the cavalry, to take them to the city and
deliver them up to the Eleven. The next day they summoned to the
Odeum the heavy-armed in the list, and the rest of the cavalry; when
Critias stood up, and said: “It is no less for your advantage, gentlemen,
than for our own, that we are establishing the present form of
government. As then you will share in its honours, so too you ought to
share in its dangers. You must give your votes therefore against the
Eleusinians here arrested, that you may have the same grounds with us
both of confidence and of fear.” And pointing out a certain spot, he
ordered them openly to deposit their votes in it. At the same time the
Lacedæmonian guard under arms occupied half of the Odeum; and
these measures were approved by such of the citizens also as only cared
for their own advantage.
After this, Thrasybulus took those at Phyle, who
[403 b.c.] had now gathered together to the number of about
a thousand, and came by night into Piræus. The
Thirty, on this intelligence, immediately went out to the rescue with both
the Lacedæmonians, and the cavalry, and the heavy-armed; and then
advanced along the cart-way that leads to Piræus. The force from Phyle
for some time attempted to stop their approach; but when the great
circuit of the wall appeared to require a large body to guard it, and they
were not a large one, they marched in close order into Munychia. The
troops from the city drew themselves up so as to fill up the road, being
not less than fifty shields deep. In this order they marched up the hill.
The force from Phyle also filled up the road, but were not more than ten
deep in their heavy-armed; behind whom, however, there were posted
both targeteers and light dart-men, and behind them the slingers. These
indeed formed a numerous body; for the inhabitants of the place had
joined them. While the enemy were coming on, Thrasybulus ordered his
men to ground their shields, and having grounded his own, but keeping
the rest of his arms, he took his stand in the midst of them, and spoke
thus:
“My fellow-citizens, I wish to inform some of you, and to remind
others, that of the men who are coming against us, those on the right
wing are they whom you routed and pursued five days ago; and those
on the extreme left are the Thirty, who both deprived us of our country
when guilty of nothing, and expelled us from our houses, and
prosecuted the dearest of our relatives. But now truly they have come
into a position, where they never thought of being, but we have always
been praying that they might be. For we are posted against them with
arms in our hands; and seeing that in former days we were arrested
both when at our meals, and asleep, and in the market-place, while
others of us were banished, when, so far from being guilty of any
offence, we were not even in the country; for these reasons the gods
are now clearly fighting on our side. For even in fair weather they raise
a storm, when it is for our advantage; and when we make an attack,
though our enemies are many, they grant to us, who are but few, to
erect trophies. And now, too, they have brought us into a position, in
which our opponents can neither hurl their spears nor their darts beyond
those who are posted before them, through its being up-hill; whereas
we, discharging down-hill both spears, and javelins, and stones, shall
both reach them, and mortally wound many of them. And one might
perhaps have thought that the first ranks, at any rate, must fight on
equal terms; but as it is, if you only discharge your weapons with spirit,
as suits your character, no one will miss, since the road is filled up with
them, and standing on their guard they will all the time be skulking
under their shields; so that we shall be able both to strike them when
we please, like blind men, and to leap on and overturn them. But, sirs,
we must act in such a way that each of us may have the consciousness
of having been most instrumental towards the victory. For that (if God
will) will now restore to us both country, and houses, and freedom, and
honours, and children (such as have them), and wives. O blessed, then,
those of us who, as victors, may see that sweetest day of all! And
happy, too, he who falls! For no one, however rich he may be, shall
enjoy so glorious a monument. I, then, when the time is come, will
begin the pæan; and when we have called on Mars to help us, then let
us all with one heart avenge ourselves on these men for the insults we
have suffered.”
Having thus spoken, he faced about towards the enemy, and
remained still. For their prophet gave them orders not to make the onset
before some one on their side had either fallen, or been wounded:
“When, however,” said he, “that has happened, I will lead the way, and
there will be victory for you who follow, but death to me, as I, at least,
believe.” And he spoke no falsehood; but when they had taken up their
arms, he himself, as though led by some destiny, was the first to bound
forward, and falling on the enemy was killed, and is buried by the
passage of the Cephisus; but the rest were victorious, and pursued
them as far as the level ground. There were slain there, of the Thirty,
Critias and Hippomachus; of the ten commanders in Piræus, Charmides,
son of Glaucon; and of the rest about seventy. The conquerors took the
arms, but plundered the clothes of none of their fellow-citizens. And
when this was done, and they were returning the dead under a truce,
many on both sides came up and conversed together. And Cleocritus,
the herald of the initiated,[3] being gifted with a very fine voice, hushed
them into silence and thus addressed them:
“Fellow-citizens, why are you driving us from our country? Why do
you wish to kill us? For we have never yet done you any harm; but have
shared with you both the most solemn rites, and the noblest sacrifices
and festivals; and have been your companions in the dance, and in the
schools, and in war; and have faced many dangers with you by land and
by sea, for the common safety and liberty of both parties. In the name
of our fathers’ and our mothers’ gods, in the name of kindred, and
affinity, and fellowship (for all these things have we in common with one
another), cease sinning against your country, and be not persuaded by
those most impious Thirty, who, for the sake of their own gain, have
killed almost more of the Athenians in eight months than all the
Peloponnesians in ten years’ warfare. And when we might live together
in peace, these men inflict on us that war which of all is the most
disgraceful, and grievous, and impious, and most hateful both to gods
and men—war with one another. But, however, be well assured, that for
some of those now slain by us, not only you, but we also, have shed
many tears.” Such was his speech. The rest of the enemy’s
commanders, from the very fact of their hearing such fresh appeals to
them, led back their men into the city.
The next day the Thirty, quite dejected and solitary, sat together in
council: while the Three Thousand, wherever they were severally
posted, were at variance with one another. For as many as had acted in
a more violent manner, and were therefore afraid, vehemently
maintained that they ought not to submit to those in Piræus: while such
as were confident that they had done no wrong, both reflected
themselves, and were persuading the rest, that there was no necessity
for these troubles: and they said that they ought not to obey the Thirty,
nor suffer them to ruin the state. At last they voted for deposing them,
and choosing others: and accordingly they chose ten, one from each
tribe.
So the Thirty departed to Eleusis; while the Ten, together with the
commanders of the cavalry, directed their attention to those in the city,
who were in a state of great confusion and distrust of each other. The
cavalry also bivouacked in the Odeum, with both their horse and their
shields; and owing to their want of confidence, they kept going their
rounds along the walls, after evening had set in, with their shields, and
towards morning with their horses, being constantly afraid that some of
those in Piræus might attack them. They, being now many in number,
and men of all sorts, were making themselves arms, some of wood,
others of wickerwork, and were whitening them over. Before ten days
had elapsed, after giving pledges that whoever joined in the war, even
though they were strangers, should have equal privileges, they marched
out, with many heavy-armed and many light-armed. They had also
about seventy horse; and making forays by day, and carrying off wood
and corn, they slept again in Piræus. Of those in the city none else came
out under arms, but the cavalry sometimes secured plunderers from the
force in Piræus, and annoyed their phalanx.
And now the Thirty from Eleusis, and those in the list from the city,
sent ambassadors to Lacedæmon, and urged them to come to their
support, as the people had revolted from the Lacedæmonians. Lysander,
calculating that it was possible quickly to reduce those in Piræus, when
 besieged both by land and by sea, if once they
were cut off from all supplies, joined in getting
a hundred talents lent them, and himself sent
out as harmost, with his brother Libys as
admiral. And having himself proceeded to
Eleusis, he raised a large force of
Peloponnesian heavy-armed; while the admiral
kept guard that no provisions should go in for
them by sea; so that those in Piræus were soon
in a strait again, while those in the city, on the
other hand, were elated again with confidence
in Lysander.
When things were progressing in this way,
Pausanias the king, filled with envy at the
thought of Lysander’s succeeding in these
measures, and so at once winning reputation
and making Athens his own, gained the
consent of three of the ephors, and led out an
expedition.[4] All the allies also joined him,
except the Bœotians and Corinthians.
Statue of Diana
Pausanias encamped on a spot called
Halipedum, near Piræus, himself occupying the
right wing, and Lysander, with his mercenaries, the left. And he sent
ambassadors to those in Piræus, telling them to go away to their own
homes; but when they did not obey his message, he made an assault
(so far, at least, as noise went), that he might not openly appear to wish
them well. When he had retired with no result from the assault, the day
following he took two brigades of the Lacedæmonians, and three
squadrons of the Athenian cavalry, and went along to the Mute Harbour,
reconnoitring in what direction Piræus was most easy to circumvallate.
On his retiring, a party of the besieged ran up and caused him
trouble; annoyed at which, he ordered the horse to charge them at full
speed, and such as had passed the period of youth ten years to
accompany them, while he himself followed with the rest. And they slew
about thirty of the light-armed, and pursued the rest to the theatre in
Piræus. There all the targeteers and heavy infantry of the party in
Piræus happened to be arming themselves. And now the light-armed
immediately running forward began darting, throwing, shooting,
slinging. The Lacedæmonians, when many were being wounded, being
very hard pressed, began slowly to retreat; and upon this their
opponents threw themselves on them much more vigorously. Seeing
this, Thrasybulus and the rest of the heavy-armed went to the support
of their men, and quickly drew themselves up in front of the others,
eight deep. Pausanias, being very hard pressed, and having retired
about four or five furlongs to a hill, sent orders for the Lacedæmonians
and the rest of the allies to advance and join him. There having formed
his phalanx very deep, he led it against the Athenians. They received his
charge, but then some of them were driven into the mud at Halæ, and
the rest gave way, about a hundred and fifty of them being slain.
Pausanias erected a trophy, and withdrew.
Not even under these circumstances was he exasperated with them,
but sent secretly, and instructed those in Piræus, with what proposals
they should send ambassadors to him and the ephors who were there.
They complied with his advice. He also set those in the city at variance,
and advised that as many as possible should collect together and come
to the Spartan officers, alleging that they did not at all want to be at war
with the men in Piræus, but to be reconciled together, and both parties
to be friends of the Lacedæmonians. The ephors and the committee
appointed to consider the question having heard all their statements,
despatched fifteen men to Athens, and ordered them, in concert with
Pausanias, to effect the best reconciliation of the parties they could. So
they reconciled them on condition of their making peace with one
another, and returning to their several homes, with the exception of the
Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten who had commanded in Piræus. If any of
those in the city should feel afraid of remaining there, it was determined
that they should establish themselves at Eleusis.
These arrangements being effected, Pausanias disbanded his army,
and the party from Piræus went up under arms to the Acropolis, and
sacrificed to Athene. But some time afterwards, hearing that the party at
Eleusis were hiring mercenaries, they took the field en masse against
them; and when their commanders had come to a conference, they put
them to death; but sent in to the others their friends and relatives, and
persuaded them to a reconciliation. And having sworn not to remember
past grievances, they lived together under the same government, the
popular party abiding by their oaths.c

FOOTNOTES
[1] This Antiphon has been confounded with the celebrated orator.
[2] Cothurnus—a shoe which fitted either foot.
[3] [That is, one of the communicants in the Eleusinian mysteries.]
[4] [This curious method of intervention for Athens’ sake has been
variously interpreted. Thirlwall makes quite a drama of benevolent
duplicity about it. According to others, Pausanias was simply moved
by a desire to nip Lysander’s ambition and to put an end to further
cruelties by the Thirty who were already winning general sympathy
for the common people and the democratic cause of Athens.]

Greek Terra-cotta Figure

(In the British Museum)

Grecian Buckles

(In the British Museum)

 CHAPTER XXXVIII. THE DEMOCRACY
RESTORED
The period intervening between the defeat of Ægospotami (October,
405 b.c.), and the re-establishment of the democracy as sanctioned by
the convention concluded with Pausanias (some time in the summer of
403 b.c.), presents two years of cruel and multifarious suffering to
Athens.
After such years of misery, it was an unspeakable relief to the
Athenian population to regain possession of Athens and Attica; to
exchange their domestic tyrants for a renovated democratical
government; and to see their foreign enemies not merely evacuate the
country, but even bind themselves by treaty to future friendly dealing. In
respect of power, indeed, Athens was but the shadow of her former self.
She had no empire, no tribute, no fleet, no fortifications at Piræus, no
long walls, not a single fortified place in Attica except the city itself.
Of these losses, the Athenians made little account at the first epoch of
their re-establishment; so intolerable was the pressure which they had
just escaped, and so welcome the restitution of comfort, security,
property, and independence at home. The very excess of tyranny
committed by the Thirty gave a peculiar zest to the recovery of the
democracy. In their hands, the oligarchical principle (to borrow an
expression from Burke) “had produced in fact and instantly, the grossest
of those evils with which it was pregnant in its nature”; realising the
promise of that plain-spoken oligarchical oath, which Aristotle mentions
as having been taken in various oligarchical cities—to contrive as much
evil as possible to the people. So much the more complete was the
reaction of sentiment towards the antecedent democracy, even in the
minds of those who had been before discontented with it. To all men,
rich and poor, citizens and metics, the comparative excellence of the
democracy, in respect of all the essentials of good government, was now
manifest. With the exception of those who had identified themselves
with the Thirty as partners, partisans, or instruments, there was scarcely
any one who did not feel that his life and property had been far more
secure under the former democracy, and would become so again if that
democracy were revived.
It was the first measure of Thrasybulus and his companions, after
concluding the treaty with Pausanias and thus re-entering the city, to
exchange solemn oaths of amnesty for the past, with those against
whom they had just been at war. Similar oaths of amnesty were also
exchanged with those in Eleusis, as soon as that town came into their
power. The only persons excepted from this amnesty were the Thirty,
the Eleven who had presided over the execution of all their atrocities,
and the Ten who had governed in Piræus. Even these persons were not
peremptorily banished: opportunity was offered to them to come in and
take their trial of accountability (universal at Athens in the case of every
magistrate on quitting office); so that if acquitted, they would enjoy the
benefit of the amnesty as well as all others. We know that Eratosthenes,
one of the Thirty, afterwards returned to Athens; since there remains a
powerful harangue of Lysias invoking justice against him as having
brought to death Polemarchus (the brother of Lysias).
We learn moreover from the same speech, that such was the
detestation of the Thirty among several of the states surrounding Attica,
as to cause formal decrees for their expulsion or for prohibiting their
coming. The sons, even of such among the Thirty as did not return,
were allowed to remain at Athens, and enjoy their rights as citizens
unmolested; a moderation rare in Grecian political warfare.
The first public vote of the Athenians, after the conclusion of peace
with Sparta and the return of the exiles, was to restore the former
democracy purely and simply, to choose by lot the nine archons and the
senate of Five Hundred, and to elect the generals—all as before. It
appears that this restoration of the preceding constitution was partially
opposed by a citizen named Phormisius, who, having served with
Thrasybulus in Piræus, now moved that the political franchise should for
the future be restricted to the possessors of land in Attica. His
proposition was understood to be supported by the Lacedæmonians,
and was recommended as calculated to make Athens march in better
harmony with them. It was presented as a compromise between
oligarchy and democracy, excluding both the poorer freemen and those
whose property lay either in movables or in land out of Attica; so that
the aggregate number of the disfranchised would have been five
thousand persons. Since Athens now had lost her fleet and maritime
empire, and since the importance of Piræus was much curtailed not
merely by these losses, but by demolition of its separate walls and of
the Long Walls—Phormisius and others conceived the opportunity
favourable for striking out the maritime and trading multitude from the
roll of citizens. Many of these men must have been in easy and even
opulent circumstances; but the bulk of them were poor; and Phormisius
had of course at his command the usual arguments, by which it is
attempted to prove that poor men have no business with political
judgment or action. But the proposition was rejected; the orator Lysias
being among its opponents, and composing a speech against it which
was either spoken, or intended to be spoken, by some eminent citizen in
the assembly.
Unfortunately we have only a fragment of the speech remaining,
wherein the proposition is justly criticised as mischievous and
unseasonable, depriving Athens of a large portion of her legitimate
strength, patriotism, and harmony, and even of substantial men
competent to serve as hoplites or horsemen—at a moment when she
was barely rising from absolute prostration. Never certainly was the
fallacy which connects political depravity or incapacity with a poor
station, and political virtue or judgment with wealth, more conspicuously
unmasked than in reference to the recent experience of Athens. The
remark of Thrasybulus was most true—that a greater number of
atrocities, both against person and against property, had been
committed in a few months by the Thirty, and abetted by the class of
horsemen, all rich men, than the poor majority of the demos had
sanctioned during two generations of democracy. Moreover we know, on
the authority of a witness unfriendly to the democracy, that the poor
Athenian citizens, who served on shipboard and elsewhere, were exact
in obedience to their commanders; while the richer citizens who served
as hoplites and horsemen and who laid claim to higher individual
estimation, were far less orderly in the public service.
The motion of Phormisius being rejected, the antecedent democracy
was restored without qualification, together with the ordinances of
Draco, and the laws, measures, and weights of Solon. But on closer
inspection, it was found that the latter part of the resolution was
incompatible with the amnesty which had been just sworn. According to
the laws of Solon and Draco, the perpetrators of enormities under the
Thirty had rendered themselves guilty, and were open to trial. To escape
this consequence, a second psephism or decree was passed, on the
proposition of Tisamenus, to review the laws of Solon and Draco, and
re-enact them with such additions and amendments as might be
deemed expedient. Five hundred citizens had just been chosen by the
people as nomothetæ or law-makers, at the same time when the senate
of Five Hundred was taken by lot; out of these nomothetæ the senate
now chose a select few, whose duty it was to consider all propositions
for amendment or addition to the laws of the old democracy, and post
them up for public inspection before the statues of the Eponymous
Heroes, within the month then running. The senate, and the entire body
of five hundred nomothetæ, were then to be convened, in order that
each might pass in review, separately, both the old laws and the new
propositions; the nomothetæ being previously sworn to decide
righteously. While this discussion was going on, every private citizen had
liberty to enter the senate, and to tender his opinion with reasons for or
against any law. All the laws which should thus be approved (first by the
senate, afterwards by the nomothetæ), but no others—were to be
handed to the magistrates, and inscribed on the walls of the portico
called Pœcile, for public notoriety, as the future regulators of the city.
After the laws were promulgated by such public inscription, the senate
of Areopagus was enjoined to take care that they should be duly
observed and enforced by the magistrates. A provisional committee of
twenty citizens was named, to be generally responsible for the city
during the time occupied in this revision. As soon as the laws had been
revised and publicly inscribed in the Pœcile pursuant to the above
decree, two concluding laws were enacted which completed the purpose
of the citizens.
The first of these laws forbade the magistrates to act upon, or permit
to be acted upon, any law not among those inscribed; and declared that
no psephism, either of the senate or of the people, should overrule any
law. It renewed also the old prohibition (dating from the days of
Clisthenes and the first origin of the democracy), to enact a special law
inflicting direct hardship upon any individual Athenian apart from the
rest, unless by the votes of six thousand citizens voting secretly.
The second of the two laws prescribed, that all the legal adjudications
and arbitrations which had been passed under the antecedent
democracy should be held valid and unimpeached—but formally
annulled all which had been passed under the Thirty. It further provided
that the laws now revised and inscribed, should only take effect from
the archonship of Euclides; that is, from the nominations of archons
made after the recent return of Thrasybulus and the renovation of the
democracy.
By these ever memorable enactments, all acts done prior to the
nomination of the archon Euclides and his colleagues (in the summer of
403 b.c.) were excluded from serving as grounds for criminal process
against any citizen. To insure more fully that this should be carried into
effect, a special clause was added to the oath taken annually by the
senators, as well as to that taken by the heliastic dicasts. The senators
pledged themselves by oath not to receive any impeachment, or give
effect to any arrest, founded on any fact prior to the archonship of
Euclides, excepting only against the Thirty and the other individuals
expressly shut out from the amnesty, and now in exile. To the oath
annually taken by the heliasts, also, was added the clause: “I will not
remember past wrongs, nor will I abet any one else who shall remember
them; on the contrary, I will give my vote pursuant to the existing laws”:
which laws proclaimed themselves as only taking effect from the
archonship of Euclides.
By additional enactments, security was taken that the proceedings of
the courts of justice should be in full conformity with the amnesty
recently sworn, and that, neither directly nor indirectly, should any
person be molested for wrongs done anterior to Euclides. And in fact the
amnesty was faithfully observed: the re-entering exiles from Piræus, and
the horsemen with other partisans of the Thirty in Athens, blended
again together into one harmonious and equal democracy.
 Greek Seals

Eight years prior to these incidents, we have seen the oligarchical

conspiracy of the Four Hundred, for a moment successful, and
afterwards overthrown; and we have had occasion to notice, in
reference to that event, the wonderful absence of all reactionary
violence on the part of the victorious people, at a moment of severe
provocation for the past and extreme apprehension for the future. We
noticed that Thucydides, no friend to the Athenian democracy, selected
precisely that occasion—on which some manifestation of vindictive
impulse might have been supposed likely and natural—to bestow the
most unqualified eulogies on their moderate and gentle bearing. Had the
historian lived to describe the reign of the Thirty and the restoration
which followed it, we cannot doubt that his expressions would have
been still warmer and more emphatic in the same sense. Few events in
history, either ancient or modern, are more astonishing than the
behaviour of the Athenian people, on recovering their democracy, after
the overthrow of the Thirty: and when we view it in conjunction with the
like phenomenon after the deposition of the Four Hundred, we see that
neither the one nor the other arose from peculiar caprice or accident of
the moment; both depended upon permanent attributes of the popular
character. If we knew nothing else except the events of these two
periods, we should be warranted in dismissing, on that evidence alone,
the string of contemptuous predicates,—giddy, irascible, jealous, unjust,
greedy, etc.—one or other of which have been so frequently pronounced
by unsympathetic or hostile critics respecting the Athenian people. A
people, whose habitual temper and morality merited these epithets,
could not have acted as the Athenians acted both after the Four
Hundred and after the Thirty. Particular acts may be found in their
history which justify severe censure; but as to the permanent elements
of character, both moral and intellectual, no population in history has
ever afforded stronger evidence than the Athenians on these two
memorable occasions.
If we follow the acts of the Thirty, we shall see that the horsemen and
the privileged three thousand hoplites in the city had made themselves
partisans in every species of flagitious crime which could possibly be
imagined to exasperate the feelings of the exiles. The latter on returning
saw before them men who had handed in their relatives to be put to
death without trial; who had seized upon and enjoyed their property;
who had expelled them all from the city, and a large portion of them
even from Attica; and who had held themselves in mastery not merely
by the overthrow of the constitution, but also by inviting and subsidising
foreign guards. Such atrocities, conceived and ordered by the Thirty, had
been executed by the aid, and for the joint benefit (as Critias justly
remarked) of those occupants of the city whom the exiles found on
returning. Now Thrasybulus, Anytus, and the rest of these exiles, saw
their property all pillaged and appropriated by others during the few
months of their absence: we may presume that their lands—which had
probably not been sold, but granted to individual members or partisans
of the Thirty—were restored to them; but the movable property could
not be reclaimed, and the losses to which they remained subject were
prodigious.
The men who had caused and profited by these
[403-402 b.c.] losses—often with great brutality towards the
families of the exiles, as we know by the case of
Lysias—were now at Athens, all individually well known to the sufferers.
In like manner, the sons and brothers of Leon and the other victims of
the Thirty, saw before them the very citizens by whose hands their
innocent relatives had been consigned without trial to prison and
execution. The amount of wrong suffered had been infinitely greater
than in the time of the Four Hundred, and the provocation, on every
ground, public and private, violent to a degree never exceeded in
history. Yet with all this sting fresh in their bosoms, we find the
victorious multitude, on the latter occasion as well as on the former,
burying the past in an indiscriminate amnesty, and anxious only for the
future harmonious march of the renovated and all-comprehensive
democracy. We see the sentiment of commonwealth in the demos, twice
contrasted with the sentiment of faction in an ascendant oligarchy; twice
triumphant over the strongest counter-motives, over the most bitter
recollections of wrongful murder and spoliation, over all that passionate
rush of reactionary appetite which characterises the moment of political
restoration.
“Bloody will be the reign of that king who comes back to his kingdom
from exile”—says the Latin poet: bloody indeed had been the rule of
Critias and those oligarchs who had just come back from exile: “harsh is
a demos (observes Æschylus) which has just got clear of misery.” But
the Athenian demos, on coming back from Piræus, exhibited the rare
phenomenon of a restoration after cruel wrong suffered, sacrificing all
the strong impulse of retaliation to a generous and deliberate regard for
the future march of the commonwealth. Thucydides remarks that the
moderation of political antipathy which prevailed at Athens after the
victory of the people over the Four Hundred, was the main cause which
revived Athens from her great public depression and danger. Much more
forcibly does this remark apply to the restoration after the Thirty, when
the public condition of Athens was at the lowest depth of abasement,
from which nothing could have rescued her except such exemplary
wisdom and patriotism on the part of her victorious demos. Nothing
short of this could have enabled her to accomplish that partial
resurrection—into an independent and powerful single state, though
shorn of her imperial power—which will furnish material for the
subsequent portion of our history.
If we wanted any further proof of their capacity for taking the largest
and soundest views on a difficult political situation, we should find it in
another of their measures at this critical period. The Ten who had
succeeded to oligarchical presidency of Athens after the death of Critias
and the expulsion of the Thirty, had borrowed from Sparta the sum of
one hundred talents [£20,000 or $100,000] for the express purpose of
making war on the exiles in Piræus. After the peace, it was necessary
that such sum should be repaid, and some persons proposed that
recourse should be had to the property of those individuals and that
party who had borrowed the money. The apparent equity of the
proposition was doubtless felt with peculiar force at a time when the
public treasury was in the extreme of poverty. Put nevertheless both the
democratical leaders and the people decidedly opposed it, resolving to
recognise the debt as a public charge; in which capacity it was
afterwards liquidated, after some delay arising from an unsupplied
treasury.
The necessity of a fresh collection and publication (if we may use that
word) of the laws, had been felt prior to the time of the Thirty. But such
a project could hardly be realised without at the same time revising the
laws, as a body, removing all flagrant contradictions, and rectifying what
might glaringly displease the age either in substance or in style. Now the
psephism of Tisamenus, one of the first measures of the renewed
democracy after the Thirty, both prescribed such revision and set in
motion a revising body; but an additional decree was now proposed and
carried by Archinus, relative to the alphabet in which the revised laws
should be drawn up. The Ionic alphabet, that is, the full Greek alphabet
of twenty-four letters, as now written and printed, had been in use at
Athens universally, for a considerable time—apparently for two
generations; but from tenacious adherence to ancient custom, the laws
had still continued to be consigned to writing in the old Attic alphabet of
only sixteen or eighteen letters. It was now ordained that this scanty
alphabet should be discontinued, and that the revised laws, as well as
all future public acts, should be written up in the full Ionic alphabet.
Partly through this important reform, partly through the revising body,
partly through the agency of Nicomachus, who was still continued as
Anagrapheus [“Writer-up” of the old laws], the revision, inscription, and
publication of the laws in their new alphabet was at length completed.
But it seems to have taken two years to perform—or at least two years
elapsed before Nicomachus went through his trial of accountability. He
appears to have made various new propositions of his own, which were
among those adopted by the nomothetæ: for these he was attacked, on
a trial of accountability, as well as on the still graver allegation of having
corruptly falsified the decisions of that body—writing up what they had
not sanctioned, or suppressing that which they had sanctioned.
The archonship of Euclides, succeeding immediately to the Anarchy
(as the period of the Thirty was denominated), became thus a cardinal
point or epoch in Athenian history. We cannot doubt that the laws came
forth out of this revision considerably modified, though unhappily we
possess no particulars on the subject. We learn that the political
franchise was, on the proposition of Aristophon, so far restricted for the
future, that no person could be a citizen by birth except the son of
citizen parents on both sides; whereas previously, it had been sufficient
if the father alone was a citizen. The rhetor Lysias, by station a metic,
had not only suffered great loss, narrowly escaping death from the
Thirty (who actually put to death his brother Polemarchus) but had
contributed a large sum to assist the armed efforts of the exiles under
Thrasybulus in Piræus. As a reward and compensation for such
antecedents, the latter proposed that the franchise of citizen should be
conferred upon him; but we are told that this decree, though adopted
by the people, was afterwards indicted by Archinus as illegal or informal,
and cancelled. Lysias, thus disappointed of the citizenship, passed the
remainder of his life as an isoteles, or non-freeman on the best
condition, exempt from the peculiar burdens upon the class of metics.

Greek Fire Irons

(In the British Museum)

Such refusal of citizenship to an eminent man like Lysias, who had

both acted and suffered in the cause of the democracy, when combined
with the decree of Aristophon above noticed, implies a degree of
augmented strictness which we can only partially explain. It was not
merely the renewal of her democracy for which Athens had now to
provide. She had also to accommodate her legislation and administration
to her future march as an isolated state, without empire or foreign
dependencies. For this purpose material changes must have been
required: among others, we know that the Board of Hellenotamiæ
(originally named for the collection and management of the tribute at
Delos, but attracting to themselves gradually more extended functions,
until they became ultimately, immediately before the Thirty, the general
paymasters of the state) was discontinued, and such among its duties as
did not pass away along with the loss of the foreign empire, were
transferred to two new officers—the treasurer at war, and the manager
of the theoricon, or religious festival-fund.
While the Athenian empire lasted, the citizens of Athens were spread
over the Ægean in every sort of capacity—as settlers, merchants,
navigators, soldiers, etc., which must have tended materially to
encourage intermarriages between them and the women of other
Grecian insular states. Indeed we are even told that an express
permission of connubium with Athenians was granted to the inhabitants
of Eubœa—a fact (noticed by Lysias) of some moment in illustrating the
tendency of the Athenian empire to multiply family ties between Athens
and the allied cities. Now, according to the law which prevailed before
Euclides, the son of every such marriage was by birth an Athenian
citizen; an arrangement at that time useful to Athens, as strengthening
the bonds of her empire—and eminently useful in a larger point of view,
among the causes of Panhellenic sympathy. But when Athens was
deprived both of her empire and her fleet, and confined within the limits
of Attica—there no longer remained any motive to continue such a
regulation, so that the exclusive city-feeling, instinctive in the Grecian
mind, again became predominant. Such is perhaps the explanation of
the new restrictive law proposed by Aristophon.
Thrasybulus and the gallant handful of exiles who had first seized
Phyle received no larger reward than a thousand drachmæ [£40 or
$200] for a common sacrifice and votive offering, together with wreaths
of olive as a token of gratitude from their countrymen. The debt which
Athens owed to Thrasybulus was indeed such as could not be liquidated
by money. To his individual patriotism, in great degree, we may ascribe
not only the restoration of the democracy, but its good behaviour when
restored. How different would have been the consequences of the
restoration and the conduct of the people, had the event been brought
about by a man like Alcibiades, applying great abilities principally to the
furtherance of his own cupidity and power!

THE END OF ALCIBIADES

 At the restoration of the democracy, Alcibiades
[405-403 b.c.] was already no more. Shortly after the catastrophe
at Ægospotami, he had sought shelter in the
satrapy of Pharnabazus, no longer thinking himself safe from
Lacedæmonian persecution in his forts on the Thracian Chersonesus. He
carried with him a good deal of property, though he left still more
behind him in these forts: how acquired we do not know. But having
crossed apparently to Asia by the Bosporus, he was plundered by the
Thracians in Bithynia, and incurred much loss before he could reach
Pharnabazus in Phrygia. Renewing the tie of personal hospitality which
he had contracted with Pharnabazus four years before, he now solicited
from the satrap a safe conduct up to Susa. The Athenian envoys—whom
Pharnabazus, after his former pacification with Alcibiades, 408 b.c., had
engaged to escort to Susa, but had been compelled by the mandate of
Cyrus to detain as prisoners—were just now released from their three
years’ detention, and enabled to come down to the Propontis; and
Alcibiades, by whom this mission had originally been projected, tried to
prevail on the satrap to perform the promise which he had originally
given, but had not been able to fulfil. The hopes of the sanguine exile,
reverting back to the history of Themistocles, led him to anticipate the
same success at Susa as had fallen to the lot of the latter: nor was the
design impracticable, to one whose ability was universally renowned,
and who had already acted as minister to Tissaphernes.
The court of Susa was at this time in a peculiar position. King Darius
Nothus, having recently died, had been succeeded by his eldest son
Artaxerxes Mnemon; but the younger son Cyrus, whom Darius had sent
for during his last illness, tried after the death of the latter to supplant
Artaxerxes in the succession—or at least was suspected of so trying.
Cyrus being seized and about to be slain, the queen-mother, Parysatis,
prevailed upon Artaxerxes to pardon him, and send him again down to
his satrapy along the coast of Ionia, where he laboured strenuously,
though secretly, to acquire the means of dethroning his brother; a
memorable attempt, of which we shall speak more fully hereafter. But
his schemes, though carefully masked, did not escape the observation of
Alcibiades, who wished to make a merit of revealing them at Susa, and
to become the instrument of defeating them. He communicated his
suspicions as well as his purpose to Pharnabazus; whom he tried to
awaken by alarm of danger to the empire, in order that he might thus
get himself forwarded to Susa as informant and auxiliary.
Pharnabazus was already jealous and unfriendly in spirit towards
Lysander and the Lacedæmonians (of which we shall soon see plain
evidence)—and perhaps towards Cyrus also, since such were the
habitual relations of neighbouring satraps in the Persian empire. But the
Lacedæmonians and Cyrus were now all-powerful on the Asiatic coast,
so that he probably did not dare to exasperate them, by identifying
himself with a mission so hostile, and an enemy so dangerous, to both.
Accordingly he refused compliance with the request of Alcibiades;
granting him nevertheless permission to live in Phrygia, and even
assigning to him a revenue. But the objects at which the exile was
aiming soon became more or less fully divulged to those against whom
they were intended. His restless character, enterprise, and capacity,
were so well known as to raise exaggerated fears as well as
exaggerated hopes. Not merely Cyrus, but the Lacedæmonians, closely
allied with Cyrus, and the decarchies, whom Lysander had set up in the
Asiatic Grecian cities, and who held their power only through
Lacedæmonian support—all were uneasy at the prospect of seeing
Alcibiades again in action and command, amidst so many unsettled
elements. Nor can we doubt that the exiles whom these decarchies had
banished, and the disaffected citizens who remained at home under
their government in fear of banishment or death, kept up
correspondence with him, and looked to him as a probable liberator.
Moreover the Spartan king Agis still retained the same personal
antipathy against him, which had already (some years before) procured
the order to be despatched, from Sparta to Asia, to assassinate him.
Here are elements enough, of hostility, vengeance, and apprehension,
afloat against Alcibiades—without believing the story of Plutarch, that
Critias and the Thirty sent to apprise Lysander that the oligarchy at
Athens could not stand so long as Alcibiades was alive.
A special despatch (or scytale) was sent out by
[404 b.c.] the Spartan authorities to Lysander in Asia,
enjoining him to procure that Alcibiades should be
put to death. Accordingly Lysander communicated this order to
Pharnabazus, within whose satrapy Alcibiades was residing, and
requested that it might be put in execution. Pharnabazus therefore
despatched his brother Magæus and his uncle Sisamithres, with a band
of armed men, to assassinate Alcibiades in the Phrygian village where he
was residing. These men, not daring to force their way into his house,
surrounded it and set it on fire. Yet Alcibiades, having contrived to
extinguish the flames, rushed out upon his assailants with a dagger in
his right hand, and a cloak wrapped around his left to serve as a shield.
None of them dared to come near him; but they poured upon him
showers of darts and arrows until he perished, undefended as he was
either by shield or by armour. A female companion with whom he lived—
Timandra—wrapped up his body in garments of her own, and performed
towards it all the last affectionate solemnities.

A GREEK RELIGIOUS PROCESSION

Such was the deed which Cyrus and the Lacedæmonians did not
scruple to enjoin, nor the uncle and brother of a Persian satrap to
execute; and by which this celebrated Athenian perished before he had
attained the age of fifty. Had he lived, we cannot doubt that he would
again have played some conspicuous part—for neither his temper nor
his abilities would have allowed him to remain in the shade—but
whether to the advantage of Athens or not is more questionable. Certain
it is that, taking his life throughout, the good which he did to her bore
no proportion to the far greater evil. Of the disastrous Sicilian
expedition, he was more the cause than any other individual; though
that enterprise cannot properly be said to have been caused by any
individual: it emanated rather from a national impulse. Having first, as a
counsellor, contributed more than any other man to plunge the
Athenians into this imprudent adventure, he next, as an exile,
contributed more than any other man (except Nicias) to turn that
adventure into ruin, and the consequences of it into still greater ruin.
Without him, Gylippus would not have been sent to Syracuse, Decelea
would not have been fortified, Chios and Miletus would not have
revolted, the oligarchical conspiracy of the Four Hundred would not have
been originated. Nor can it be said that his first three years of political
action as Athenian leader, in a speculation peculiarly his own—the
alliance with Argos, and the campaigns in Peloponnesus—proved in any
way advantageous to his country. On the contrary, by playing an
offensive game where he had hardly sufficient force for a defensive, he
enabled the Lacedæmonians completely to recover their injured
reputation and ascendency through the important victory of Mantinea.
The period of his life really serviceable to his country, and really glorious
to himself, was that of three years ending with his return to Athens in
407 b.c. The results of these three years of success were frustrated by
the unexpected coming down of Cyrus as satrap: but just at the
moment when it behoved Alcibiades to put forth a higher measure of
excellence, in order to realise his own promises in the face of this new
obstacle—at that critical moment we find him spoiled by the unexpected
welcome which had recently greeted him at Athens, and falling
miserably short even of the former merit whereby that welcome had
been earned.
If from his achievements we turn to his dispositions, his ends, and his
means—there are few characters in Grecian history who present so little
to esteem, whether we look at him as a public or as a private man. His
ends are those of exorbitant ambition and vanity; his means rapacious
as well as reckless, from his first dealing with Sparta and the Spartan
envoys, down to the end of his career. The manœuvres whereby his
political enemies first procured his exile were indeed base and guilty in a
high degree. But we must recollect that if his enemies were more
numerous and violent than those of any other politician in Athens, the
generating seed was sown by his own overweening insolence and
contempt of restraints, legal as well as social. On the other hand, he
was never once defeated either by land or sea. In courage, in ability, in
enterprise, in power of dealing with new men and new situations, he
was never wanting; qualities which, combined with his high birth,
wealth, and personal accomplishments, sufficed to render him for the
time the first man in every successive party which he espoused—
Athenian, Spartan, or Persian—oligarchical or democratical. But in none
of them did he ever inspire any lasting confidence; all successively threw
him off. On the whole, we shall find few men in whom eminent
capacities for action and command are so thoroughly marred by an
assemblage of bad moral qualities as Alcibiades.b

LIFE AT ATHENS
The state of Athens after the expulsion of the
[404-403 b.c.] Thirty was in some respects apparently less
desolate than that in which she had been left after
the battle of Platæa. It is possible indeed that the invasions of Xerxes
and Mardonius may have inflicted less injury on her territory than the
methodical and lingering ravages of the Peloponnesians during the
Decelean war. But in 479 the city, as well as the country, had been, for a
part of two consecutive years, in the power of an irritated enemy. All
that it required both for ornament and defence was to be raised afresh
from the ground. Yet the treasury was empty: commerce had probably
never yet yielded any considerable supplies, and it had been deeply
disturbed by the war; the state possessed no dependent colonies or
tributary allies, and was watched with a jealous eye by the most
powerful of its confederates.
Commerce had not only been interrupted by the
[403-402 b.c.] blockade, but had sustained still greater detriment
from the tyranny of the Thirty, which had crushed
or scared away the most opulent and industrious of the aliens: and the
cloud which continued to hang over the prospects of the state, even
after freedom and tranquillity had been restored, tended to discourage
those who might have been willing to return. The public distress was
such that it was with the greatest difficulty the council could provide
ways and means for the ordinary expenses. Even the ancient sacrifices
prescribed by the sacred canons were intermitted, because the treasury
could not furnish three talents [£600 or $8000] for their celebration: and
the repayment of a loan of two talents which had been advanced by the
Thebans, probably in aid of the exiles, was so long delayed through the
same cause, that hostilities were threatened for the purpose of
recovering the debt. The navy of Athens had now sunk to a fourth of
that which she had maintained before the time of Solon, and it was
limited to this footing by a compact which could not be broken or eluded
without imminent danger; Piræus was again unfortified: the arsenal was
in ruins: even the city walls needed repairs, which could not be
undertaken for want of money; and on all sides were enemies who
rejoiced in her humiliation, and were urged both by their passions and
interests to prevent her from again lifting up her head.

Drinking Horns

The corruption of the Athenian courts of justice probably began with

that great extension of their business which took place when the greater
part of the allies had lost their independence and were compelled to
resort to Athens for the determination of all important causes. At the
same time the increase of wealth and the enlargement of commerce,
multiplied the occasions of litigation at home. The taste of the people
began to be more and more interested in forensic proceedings, even
before it was attracted towards them by any other inducement. The pay
of the jurors introduced by Pericles strengthened this impulse by a fresh
motive, which, when Cleon had tripled its amount, acted more
powerfully, and on a larger class. A considerable number of citizens then
began to look to the exercise of their judicial functions as a regular
source both of pleasure and profit.
But the prevalence of this frivolous habit was not the worst fault of
the Athenian courts. In the most important class of cases, the criminal
prosecutions, they were seldom perfectly
impartial, and their ordinary bias was against
the defendant. The juror in the discharge of his
office did not forget his quality of citizen, and
was not indifferent to the manner in which the
issue of a trial might affect the public revenue,
and thus he leaned towards decisions which
replenished the treasury with confiscations and
pecuniary penalties, while they also served to
terrify and humble the wealthy class, which he
viewed with jealousy and envy. On this
notorious temper of the courts was grounded
the power of the infamous sycophants who
lived by extortion, and generally singled out, as
the objects of their attacks, the opulent citizens
of timid natures and quiet habits, who were
both unable to plead for themselves, and
shrank from a public appearance. Such persons
might indeed procure the aid of an advocate, Fortune
but they commonly thought it better to
(After Hope)
purchase the silence of the informer, than to
expose themselves to the risk and the certain
inconvenience of a trial. The resident aliens were not exempt from this
annoyance; and, though they were not objects of fear or jealousy, they
were placed under many disadvantages in a contest with an Athenian
prosecutor. But the noble and affluent citizens of the subject states,
above all, had reason to tremble at the thought of being summoned to
Athens, to meet any of the charges which it was easy to devise against
them, and to connect with an imputation of hostile designs or disloyal
sentiments, and were ready to stop the mouths of the orators with gold.
There is no room for doubt as to the existence of the evils and vices
we have been describing, though the most copious information we
possess on the subject is drawn not from purely historical sources, but
from the dramatic satires of Aristophanes. But there may still be a
question as to the measure of allowance to be made for comic
exaggeration, or political prejudices, in the poet; and it seems probable
that the colours in which he has painted his countrymen are in some
respects too dark. That the mass of the people had not sunk to this
degree of depravity, may we think be inferred from the grief and
indignation which it is recorded to have shown on some occasions,
where it had been misled into an unjust sentence, by which it stained
itself with innocent blood: as Callixenus, who however was not worse
than other sycophants, though he was among those who returned after
the expulsion of the Thirty, and enjoyed the benefit of the amnesty,
died, universally hated, of hunger.

ARISTOPHANES
The patriotism of Aristophanes was honest, bold,
[ca. 425-400 b.c.] and generally wise. He was still below the age at
which the law permitted a poet to contend for a
dramatic prize, and was therefore compelled to use a borrowed name,
when, in the year after the death of Pericles, he produced his first work,
in which his chief aim seems to have been to exhibit the contrast
between the ancient and the modern manners. In his next, his ridicule
was pointed more at the defects or the perversion of political
institutions, and perhaps at the democratical system of filling public
offices by lot. In both, however, he had probably assailed many of the
most conspicuous persons of the day, and either by personal satire, or
by attacks on the abuses by which the demagogues throve, he provoked
the hostility of Cleon, who endeavoured to crush him by a prosecution.
Its nominal ground was, it seems, the allegation, that the poet, who in
fact according to some accounts was of Dorian origin, was not legally
entitled to the franchise. But the real charge was that in his recent
comedy he had exposed the Athenian magistracy to the derision of the
foreign spectators. Cleon, however, was baffled; and though the attempt
was once or twice renewed, perhaps by other enemies of Aristophanes,
it failed so entirely, that he seems to have been soon left in the
unmolested enjoyment of public favour; and he not only was
encouraged to revenge himself on Cleon by a new piece, in which the
demagogue was exhibited in person, and was represented by the poet
himself,—who it is said could not find an actor to undertake the part, nor
even get a suitable mask made for it,—but he at the same time
ventured on an experiment which it seems had never been tried before
on the comic stage.
The people had been accustomed to see the most
eminent Athenian statesmen and generals brought
forward there and placed in a ludicrous light; but it
had never yet beheld its own image set before its
eyes as in a mirror, which reflected the principal
features of its character, not indeed without the
exaggeration which belonged to the occasion, but yet
with a truth which could not be mistaken or evaded.
This was done in the same play which exposed
Cleon’s impudence and rapacity; and the follies and
faults of the assembled multitude, which appears
under its proper name of Demos, as an old dotard,
not void of cunning, though incapable of governing
Aristophanes himself, are placed in the strongest relief by the
presence of its unworthy favourite, who is
introduced, not indeed by name, but so as to be
immediately recognised, as a lying, thievish, greedy, fawning,
Paphlagonian slave. The poet’s boldness was so far successful, that
instead of offending the audience he gained the first prize: but in every
other respect he failed of attaining his object; for Cleon, as we have
seen, maintained his influence unimpaired to the end of his life, and the
people showed as little disposition to reform its habits, and change its
measures, as if the portrait it had seen of itself had been no less
amiable than diverting. But the issue of this attempt did not deter him
from another, which, but for the applause which had crowned the first,
might have appeared equally dangerous. As in the Knights he had
levelled his satire against the sovereign assembly; in the Wasps, which
he exhibited in the year before Cleon’s death, he attacked the other
stronghold of his power, the courts of justice, with still keener ridicule.
The vehicles in which Aristophanes conveyed his political lessons,
strange as they appear to us, were probably judiciously chosen, as well
with the view of pointing the attention of the audience more forcibly to
his practical object, as of relieving the severity of his admonitions and
censures. As time has spared only a few fragments of the earlier and the
contemporary productions of the comic drama, it is only from the report