Word Count: 8212nd Source Criticism Paper

What are the major objections to Athenian democracy raised by the author? How does the text compare to Pericles’ Funeral oration?

While the author of this manuscript, “The Constitution of Athens”, is unknown, it is clear that he was a clear antagonist to the traditional Athenian democracy during the height of the Athenian Empire circa 430 BCE. The author attempts to highlight pitfalls of the Athenian democracy whilst begrudging its apparent success. The author’s major objection to the way the Athenian democracy is run and regulated is that its backbone has been revealed to be the Athenian poor—the uneducated, the unqualified, and the unfortunate.

The author maintains that since the poorer classes and the common people of Athens man the fleet of the all powerful Athenian navy, they can therefore given the credit as those who “have brought the city her power”. However his tone maintains that this credit is undeserved not in action but the accompanying benefits are undeserved. His statement that “the right of speech should belong to any one who likes, without restriction” is spoken with the tone of incredulity seeing as freedom of speech was one of those undeserved. Common people are allowed to contribute their physical assets to maintain the empire, but not their mental ones—such as the right to address the council with opinions that are inferior due to lack of proper education.

People with the proper education as well as the “highest scrupulousness in the pursuit of excellence is to be found in the ranks of the better class”, or what he also deems “persons of good quality”. In contrast, “the greatest amount of ignorance, disorderliness, rascality” and naturally lack of education is to be found in the common people. The author, as a “good person”, feels unappreciated and insulted that people of lower status would have influence in the government. Whether that influence carries equal weight or any at all, the author is convinced that the unfortunate class should not even be allowed such privilege; nor should they be allowed to have privilege at the expense of the upper class. He further objects to the rules of the democracy when it comes to who is footing the entertainment bills of the polis. The wealthy pays for the common people to be trained and to compete in the races and on the same token, it is the wealthy man who stands at the helm of the navy or heading athletics while “the People profits by their labors”. In this light, the author contends that while the Poor benefit from this exchange, the rich are made poorer and have less to gain. Again, the author does not dispute that the common Athenians contribution to the navy is what ensures the survival of the empire, his major objection is the very fact that he cannot let himself dispute “the justification of the equality conferred upon our resident aliens” because of this same reason.

This author’s objections to the democracy and begrudging acknowledgment that contribution from the common class is a necessity to a successful Athenian empire is at odds with accolades to the same Athenian democracy proclaimed during Pericles’ funeral oration. Pericles speaks of the great friendliness that Athens possesses and how this camaraderie inspires good will from their allies. This is at odds with the harsh reality that Athens demanded tributes from allies and that that swift and brutal punishment is what they faced should the ally

not with to defer to Athens’ policy. The author levels with his reader and baldly says that often “the better people are punished with infamy, robbed of their money, driven from their homes, and put to death, while the baser sort are promoted to honor”. He explains that the empire recognizes to subdue an enemy, one must take the upper class out of play, and reward the lower class by leaving them “only enough to live upon…but powerless to harbor treacherous designs”. This does not exactly match the image painted by the words of camaraderie and good will by Pericles. It becomes apparent to an individual who has read both texts that one must take into account the intended audience and the platform on which words are spoken. Pericles was chosen to be the orator of a very public funeral honoring those fallen in the line of duty to their empire. He had a crowd full of people to soothe with words of encouragement that the sacrifice of the dead was meaningful and his words glorifying Athens reflect this. Compare this to “The Constitution of Athens” written by this unknown author, his rhetoric reflected the unpopular opinion, serving to criticize the Athenian democracy as well as the poor citizens. It was probably never meant to be publicly circulated, just discussed amongst the author’s circle of conservatives—ergo little glorification and a lot of sharing an ugly reality.