Re: Anti-democratic dialogues On 4 Sept. 1994 CE Dan Tompkins wrote: || >Clearly Athenian democracy had its problems, but it had lots of virtues that >Plato/Socrates passed over. This statement was made in response to a statement I had posted on Sept. 3. In this statement I chided the late Athenian Democracy (of the Fifth Century) for losing a war, openly disregarding its own laws, and turning on its ablest rulers (namely Alkibiades). The point I was trying to make was in response to a question concerning Plato's apparent disdain concerning that very democracy. And that is the very point I was trying to make. "If Plato held an anti-democratic view it MOST LIKELY stemmed from the issues I raised." I was not saying that he in fact held such views, nor was I stating that I subscribed to them nor was I defending the view itself. Equally true, however, I am not attacking them either. Another point--I think we are crossing channels as well. I was not attempting to place a Straussian interpretation on Plato's view nor was I even addressing the interpretative essays themselves. I stress once more, the original question (as I interpretated it) was whether I had noticed an anti-democratic slant in Plato's writings themselves. Dan Tompkins also wrote >Inter alia, the remarkable long-term survival of the Athenian polity--508 BC >to late fourth century--can without much argument be attributed to the >extension of the franchise of the city. True--only if you take "polity" in its broadest sense. The gov't of 508 BCE Athens was not the same as the one which existed in 308 BCE (or 408 BCE for that matter). Old _GENOI_ (Eupatrid) leadership went to the Boule Areiopagos on down to the Boule Pentakosioi and Ekklesia to Macedonia occupation. The revolutions of 462, 411 and 404 each left a perminent change in this "polity." >Why bring up the Thirty Tyrants in this context? Their short but sanguinary >reign--over a thousand killed in months--is in itself a pretty good example of >why oligarchies fail. Like the reign of Nero, people today seem to forget that for a substantial portion of their rule, the Thirty Tyrants were considered benevolent, honorable, and good for the city. In fact, Plato (Epist. 7.324b-d) relates that Athenians were at first optimistic, even thankful for their rule. We also must remember that the democrats had to take Athens back by force. This is not made in defense of their existence, nor am I trying to counter the overall claim that they did ultimately fail. If we are going to judge the governments of this time by their actions, then we must look at the whole picture. Yes the Thirty were brutal, yes they were repressive--but they executed hundreds--not thousands--WHEREAS the Athenian democracy executed WHOLE city-states (Eudoea in 446; Melos in 416 and others --Thuc. 1, 5.84-116 and so on). And when Athens was considered its most arrogant, its most repressive, and its most greedy it was a democracy. These judgments come from Athenian citizens and resident aliens of the time (Thuc. Lysias, Isocrates and so on), not from me nor am I quoting today's historians. Although Ober's book is exceptional I tend to read the original sources themselves more closely and that is what I base my statements on. What's my point? I think we need to remind ourselves that Plato was a fourth century author, living in a certain time. If we attempt to remove those considerations then we just might place serious constraints on our ability to interpret his writings. christopher [Submitted by: CSPLANEA@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU Mon, 5 Sep 1994 15:08:47 BST] Up